User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2010

Take care. Looks like the MILHIST and AUS FA output will probably drop by 20%+ then YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Heh, you're too kind, as always. I was hoping to maintain an average of one FA per month by getting Bill Newton through shortly and Albert Ball in July but at this rate methinks Albert will have to wait till August -- still need some library items to complete that one and it ain't gonna happen in the next 48 hours... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick reply as we continue on towards the end of our trip, and to see if I can still remember how to edit... In Sorrento as we speak, having spent the day at Pompeii -- tks for the good wishes, take care, and see you round! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hope that making this edit wasn't as sad for you as it is when I make similar ones at the end of holidays ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tks mate. Well, commenting it out is not as permanent as deleting it, so not quite so sad. Reason is that my wife has made the mistake of suggesting that she might release me for a trip to Egypt (not one of her preferred destinations, unlike Europe) later this year, and I may take her up on it...! The tour I'm looking at includes El Alamein - should try and get a few along from MilHist... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm jealous! (though I am in the very early stages of planning a visit to Normandy and Flanders late next year). Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! Made it to Normandy a few years ago but never seen Flanders (WWII always held the greater interest for me until recently, and I can probably thank MilHist for redressing the balance!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'm not sure if I or anyone else has suggested this to you, but have you considered nominating to become an administrator? I don't see any reason why you wouldn't pass an RfA if you put your hand up. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I do appreciate the thought. Actually two others have suggested this in the past and my response has been that I didn't feel I could do it justice while concentrating on article-writing (admire those like yourself and Parsec who can do it, but I couldn't). Now having returned from o/s, my main priority is editing thousands of pictures and hours of video so aside from not taking interest in articles, I'm just hoping I can do enough at MilHist to justify the coordinator role! Never say never, however, and if I think I could make a go of the admin role in future, I might reconsider. Cheers and thanks again, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. If you change your mind I'd be happy to nominate you. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian: a) For your amusement, I thought it might bring you a smile to know that, over the years, several people have suggested that I might want to nominate myself. (Come on. Stop laughing. It's not THAT funny ... )

b) When I responded: "Why would I want to make myself a target for nutters and malcontents?", they never asked again ...

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. See separate posting.

I just made some corrections to Manfred von Richthofen. Marvel of marvels, I even cited them. Now, let's see what type of ordure hits the automatic circular air-circulatory device (lol).

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'll keep an eye on it... By the way, now I'm back from overseas, I will eventually return to the Albert Ball article -- still keen to see that at GA/A/FA, just taking a while to get back into the swing of things research-and-writing-wise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am tee-totally amazed. I got away with it. I had somebody shoot down their beloved Red Baron, and NO ONE noticed. If fact, I based a DYK on it, and got pretty much a yawn...fewer than 3K hits.

Well, if I can get away with that, maybe I dast sneak into the lion's den again...as in Tuskegee Airmen. I am gathering up reference materials right now. Would you care to Waltz Matilda with me on that one? With your editing and my writing, we might get a relatively easy FA out of it. Of course, we also stand a fair chance to catch some ethnic grief about it, cobber.

And, as a random FYI, the number of notable WWI fighter aces without bios is down to just over 200 of the approximate 1,850 eligibles. And I am closing in on them, too. Perseverance furthers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I saw your revert here. While I agree that he's primarily known as a soldier, I also think that his political career merits proper attention in the infobox - he was an MP for almost ten years, after all. As it stands the infobox has no information about the exact dates of his parliamentary career (something that all other MPs have, and something that's undoubtedly useful to anyone looking at his article for that reason), and nothing about his political party either. Having said that, I agree that the infobox as it was did give undue importance to his political career over his military one. I don't suppose there's another way this could be achieved? (I've no involvement with WP:MILHIST, which I know from afar as an excellent but idiosyncratic group, and I do wish their infoboxes were a bit more standard so that these kind of things could be accommodated.) Thanks! Frickeg (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your thinking above, I agree the political career merits more attention than simply the "Other work" parameter in the military person infobox, just not over and above the military data. If we could add the political data below the military info, with the military person infobox still providing the template, I think that would satisfy both of us. Incidentally, the other thing I like about the military infobox is simply that it seems to be wider than the political ones, so the info isn't wrapped around multiple lines so often. I did manage to improve the aviator infobox to include the alt text parameter recently, so I'd be happy to look into the possibility of grafting additional parameters to the military infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's a way to do that it would be great. Ideally it would have space for the exact dates of his term of service, his predecessor and successor, and his political party. It would be great to give the military template this capability. (I agree to an extent that the political infoboxes are quite thin, although this does ensure less white space around the portraits.) Frickeg (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See the meetup page for further information - short version is that we're hoping to meet in a fortnight in the city for a beer and a chat. Minors and Miners are welcome, with a responsible adult and a minimum of coal dust ;-) - do try and get out if you can, it's been a little while since wiki folk met in Sydney :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Good to see you back. Informing you that Meckiff is back after some remedial action on his bowling technique YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian & "Rupert": I thought you might be interested in what's been going on at Talk:John Whittle#Commonwealth armed forces ? and User talk:Abecedare#British Commonwealth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a suggestion on his talk page that someone take the article to GA and/or FA status. This may be your hint to pitch in, cobber.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that would be a nice challenge, I seem to remember thinking of this one as our next collaborative effort after Albert Ball so I guess I can't back away fron it! However I'd like to finish Ball first and am working on that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ehi who are you to say that Hakan Gustavsson aviation page is not relliable??? WHo are You??? He is an historian so please be quiet and do not delete other contributors work. Or you should show why that page is not reliable. DO it, if you can. That man is an historian that published aviation books. Try to be more humble and do not forget tha wikipedia is not your private little field. regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, it's not a question of ownership but of quality and reliability -- I'm always happy to see new info if it fits those criteria. I saw this site when preparing the article and although it purports to be by an historian, it doesn't alter the blog quality of the page, which means it didn't sit well with me as a reliable source, particularly as there were other clearly reliable ones available, which I used. Since you want to pursue this, I'm happy to seek other opinions on the site's quality for use as a reference and I'm sure you'll abide by consensus, as will I... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been fighting a battle over the IPs edits, I reported them to WP:AIV, however, they disagreed on blocking the editor, saying that it was not vandalism, see: . Do you have any suggestions for stopping the disruptive edits? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's a problem when it's not obvious vandalism, admins tend to treat it as content dispute instead and you're in danger of being seen to violate the 3-revert rule if you remove things too zealously. Best thing I think is to have more eyes on it (as with me) to spread the load of reversions but we could also seek protection for the article (stopping IP editors) as opposed to seeking a block for the editor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been 2 more edits this evening, see: . Could you review those edits for their accuracy? I've also requested expert verification for the article, are you able to do that or is there an area of WPMILHIST that would do that for the article? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sure you want to do all these yourself, Tom? Be happy to say do the 1-stripers if you want to handle the higher ones..."

Well, if you volunteering, then how about we split the load evenly? I'll take the top section (Award period Jul-Dec 2009), and you can take the bottom section (Award period Jan-Jun 2010). How does that sound? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine -- I noted your last post on Rog's page and recall that we were going to do the tallying and awarding together some time ago but never made it, so we both have a little debt there...! I'm out for the day now but will make a start later on with the Jan-Jun 2010 awards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. Thanks for verifying all those results, it makes it a lot quicker when there's two people doing it instead of one. I've tallied the results offline in an Excel spreadsheet but I was wondering if you would mind tallying them up also and checking my maths. I think we have a tie, so I'd appreciate a second set of eyes in case I made an error. My count is 10 editors, 67 articles, with two editors ending up on 133 points, and other editors scoring 53, 35, 21, 20, 15, 15, 11 and 5 points respectively. Is this what you get? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay mate, will get on to that shortly and check, just in the middle of upgrading Word on the laptop... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, just did my own arithmatic and your figures look fine to me. I'm happy to update the table and newsletter and hand out awards to YM, SV and HP, unless you have a burning desire to do so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No that's fine. If you want to do it, I'm happy with that. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

with a historical tale soon? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, have to admit I don't feel compelled to write much at the moment following the last o/s trip and preparation for another next month, although I do have one or two things running in background as it were. I'll probably largely restrict myself to reviews, coord-type tasks, and the odd edit for a while. Thanks for asking though, and congrats on a great writing effort of your own this past month...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for running the thing. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...and AustralianRupert... ;-) No probs, cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Writer's Barnstar. Very much appreciated. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, well done! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Buggie111's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Poke? Buggie111 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your assistance in helping get the reviewer awards out I hereby award you The teamwork Barnsar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tom -- I'd give you one as well for your efforts but then it'd look like we were in cahoots...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ian for the Award. I appreciate! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for participating, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! GregorB (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you very much for mine as well! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your award! Thank you very much!!--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advisements. I've restored some content previously copyedited of the background section. The second stage of the Eighty Years' War refers to what happened from the end of the Twelwe Years' Truce in 1621 to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. There were offensive campaigns against the Dutch during this period (See the Siege of Breda, for example), but after the loss of the Fort Shenck it was decided to give priority to the operations against the French, dividing the army of Flanders in two. The major force invaded France while the secondary was left to the defend the Dutch frontier. ElBufon (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I think I get what you were saying, but the phrase "both in 1636 and 1637" sounds odd when juxtaposed with the broader timeframe of "the second stage of the Eighty Years' War". Do we really need the latter phrase given the specific years you mention? Could the start of that section be rephrased as While no major offensive operation was carried out against the United Provinces by the Spanish Army of Flanders during 1636–37, in July 1637 the statholder Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange, marched into northern Barbant in command of an army of 18,000 soldiers and invested the Spanish-ruled city of Breda.? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing the article. You mentioned in the edit summary that some sentences were uncited. Could you please indicate which ones you had in mind? I will then add the respective reference. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Yours was an article I did as part of a personal assessment drive last night so I didn't have time for more detail at the time. The areas I referred to are the last sentence of the Escalation section, and the second-last sentence of Aftermath. MilHist B-class is quite strict on referencing, requiring every paragraph to have at least one citation at the end. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I rearranged the the last sentence of the Escalation section since the source for the statement was the same as the previous source. I probably should have written it differently in order to avoid any ambiguity. I rephrased/changed the second-last sentence of the Aftermath section and added a source. Please have a look. Any comments welcome. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first one I mentioned is fine but I realise now I misled you about the other -- when I said second-last sentence of Aftermath I meant second-last paragraph (the single-sentence one). Sorry for confusion... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I added sources for the statement. (BTW, thanks for the copyediting) Any comments? Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me -- assessed as B-Class for the Military History project. Incidentally, if you'd like other articles you work on to be assessed against B-Class criteria by the MilHist project, you can add them here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to everything.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted -- I'll be away for a day or so but will re-check the article/review then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over the Anton von Zach article. The Smith-Kudrna citations refer to an entry in the External references section. If I cannot cite a French wikipedia source (in this case, who married who) directly, then do I cite the source in the French WP article? I discovered this bit of information about Zach; it would be a shame not to use it. Please let me know how I should handle this. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I misread "Smith-Kudrna" as one author's compound surname, not two authors as in the external link. Two things on this one: 1) the short citation for two authors like this should read "Smith; Kudrna" or "Smith & Kudrna", not "Smith-Kudrna"; 2) if an external link is actually cited, it should be included in the References section, not in External Links. External Links should be used as kind of a Further Reading section for online sources. As to the other item, yes, if you trust the source in the French WP article, cite it directly in your English version as you do the other sources already there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the suggested changes (I hope), plus used the opportunity to improve the article with some material. I removed the "Printed materials" heading so that an on-line source could go under "References". Djmaschek (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, that looks good. I made one little tweak and assessed as B for all projects -- will make a note on the MilHist Assessment Requests page as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have her at WP:MHAR, just to let you know. Buggie111 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's how I spotted her -- had to buzz off for a bit after the ce but will try to get back for assessment soon, if no-one beats me to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Have to dash off again -- could you get the Bibliography entries consistent? Right now they're a bit all over the place... Happy to rate as B after that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning, their not alphabetically ordered, or they don't all use citebook? I presume (and will start working on) the latter.Buggie111 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the latter -- that will standarise format and data. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as coordinator for the Military history Project from March 2010 to September 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. —TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian Rose has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ian Rose's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ian Rose! Peace, Rlevse 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence I log on to WP for the first time on my trip away in Egypt the same day you give me this -- thank you very much, I'm honoured! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 08:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rog! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Any idea who this well-decorated person is? Photo is from Harvard Art Museum, who says he's General Giroflore... Scewing (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Woody, the medals he's wearing include commandeur of the Légion d'honneur (the front medal around his neck), the Crimea Medal (British medal with clasps second from the right of image), the British Order of the Bath (large rectangular medal second from left on ribbon bar). It all suggests he was prominent in the Second French Empire Scewing (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 26, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 26, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank McNamara (1894–1961) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest decoration for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to a member of the British and Commonwealth forces. Serving with the Australian Flying Corps, he was honoured for his actions on 20 March 1917, when he rescued a fellow pilot who had been forced down behind enemy lines. McNamara was the first Australian aviator, and the only one in World War I, to receive the Victoria Cross. He later became a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Born and educated in Victoria, McNamara was a teacher when he joined the militia prior to World War I. In 1915, he was selected for pilot training at Central Flying School, Point Cook, and transferred to the Australian Flying Corps the following year. He was based in the Middle East with No. 1 Squadron when he earned the Victoria Cross. In 1921, McNamara enlisted as a Flying Officer in the newly formed RAAF, rising to the rank of Air Vice Marshal by 1942. He held senior posts in England and Aden during World War II. Retiring from the Air Force in 1946, McNamara continued to live in Britain until his death from heart failure in 1961. (more...)

Thanks, I check edits to the article on a regular basis and it still looks okay to me, same with the TFA blurb -- only the "more" link needed disambiguation, which I've done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's nice that you got a notification - I only discovered that Convoy GP55 was going to be the TFA by chance a day before it appeared... Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I remembered that one -- congrats! This official note just popped up, but I had early warning a few days ago when I found time to check my watchlist and saw something that included "TFA" in an edit summary for the article's talk page... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ian,

They may have to protect that page. For what ever reason, along with the BOMB page the vandalism freaks love it. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
		Awarded to Ian Rose, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tks for organising, guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I Believe Sword deserves a reassessment to B class and would appreciate your input. thx, --87.70.124.157 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I responded to all your questions. The question on "practical" lighting was the most difficult, I've tried reorganizing the sentence to hopefully make it clearer that it's an issue of doing things in-camera without later effects. See if that helps, and thanks again for the review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, yes that concept wasn't easy to put into words but I think you did fine with your little re-write. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your "heads up" on references. My source is rafweb - I trust that's sufficiently strong, I'll add it anyway. I disagree on the awards list point. There are many articles where this summary approach is used and they're useful as easy references (eg Dwight D. Eisenhower, a B rated article). My personal view is that I advocate accessibility to encourage use and that adherence to rules and an "encyclopedic" or "academic" approach should be second to that (verifiability above all of course). In some cases, the main text can be so detailed or long that summaries of some topics are justifiable. Perhaps the way ahead on ODMs (Orders, Decorations & Medals) is to get a consensus from both the MILHIST and ODM projects. Meanwhile, I'll sort the citations. By the way, FYI, I've done the same approach to all the MRAFs listed in rafweb. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rafweb is okay for B-Class and has been accepted on some GA articles, so no problem as far as that goes on this article; however it would likely not be deemed suitable for MilHist A-Class or for FA. A number of us in MilHist have had the discussion re. listing all campaign/service medals along with the orders and decorations and I can point you to dozens of A/FA-Class articles that deem their listing superfluous. One of the arguments is that orders and decorations are already conveniently listed in the infobox, while campaign/service medals are not of particular interest by their nature, granted for being in a particular place at a particular time rather than for some conspicuous act. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree about campaign medals, I would exclude them (although they are a quick guide to an individual's service, I suppose). Not sure about long service awards - do you have any in mind? One could take similar view about some foreign awards - they seem to "in the rations" for some senior officers, although effective staff and other rear-echelon work is essential - I'd leave them in. I was advised some time ago to thin down the content of infoboxes, and the lower grades of an award are obvious (a KBE doesn't need his MBE and OBE to be mentioned in the infobox), as are citation, for removal. Award dates, I think, should also be moved and I now prefer not to record all awards there. This maintains the focus. Having removed such data, however, surely it needs to be resited and a dedicated section is appropriate, IMO. I note some people have separate articles for their awards; one wonders at the scrap value of their chests. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)