User	Talk	Articles	Awards	DYK	Sandbox	Victoria Cross

Archives

Archive 1 (June 2007 – June 2008) Archive 2 (July – August 2008) Archive 3 (September – October 2008) Archive 4 (November – December 2008) Archive 5 (January – February 2009) Archive 6 (March – April 2009) Archive 7 (May – June 2009) Archive 8 (July – August 2009) Archive 9 (September – October 2009) Archive 10 (November – December 2009)

Welcome!

This article has been reduced to single point about the raid on dresden, I feel this should be a much larger and generally better article. Could you have a look and see what you recommend to improve the quality and flag it with the appropriate projects? Sherzo (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article obviously needs to be expanded to cover all points this topic is related to. However, before that can happen, youse must cease your edit warring and carmly and rationally discuss how to expand the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think i'm edit warring, user PBS doesnt believe the article should be expanded beyond a single press conference about dresden, which has no context about the raid and he reverts any attempts to expand the article beyond and if you read the talkpage he is alone in stance. He also removes the tags without consensus, so how is reverting his actions edit warring, surely they constitute vandalism [1] Sherzo (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you really think terror bombing belongs in the terrorism project? Sherzo (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your stance, but continual reverts of each other's edits does constitute edit warring (see WP:3RR), so just be careful in that regards. I would advise that you refrain from making any edits to the page that would or could be regarded as controversial, and just continue to calmly, rationally and civilly discuss the issues with the article, and how to proceed forward. If you do add any tags to the article, remember to detail why they have been added on the talk page so there is less chance or grounding for them to be removed. I do think the article comes under the scope of WikiProject Terrorism as terrorism is violent or dangerous acts that instil and fester fear within people, which is what it appears the objective of terror bombing is. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm confused but consensus does mean unamity does it? Since except for PBS everyone else agrees it should be expanded, otherwise PBS can effectively Veto any change to the article. On the matter of wiki terrorism that is one definition (and it is certainly not universially agreed) but it has many and for the main the general consensus has to been to exclude the acts of uniformed soldiers and police from the wiki terrorism project. Sherzo (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. If there is consensus among the editors involved that expansion should occur, and this particular editor is fighting, or going against, the consensus than the latter editor is in violation of guidelines. If you truly believe this editor is going against consensus then you might want to have a read through Wikipedia:Consensus and see what processes you can undertake, such as posting a note on the WikiProject Military History talk page to gain further input into the article to achieve a concrete level of consensus. However, if this editor continues to disrupt the article then you might wish to post a note at WP:AN/I for an administrator to review the editor's actions, and take appropriate action if necessary.

I am not completely knowledgable in the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, so if you think I have tagged the article in error than feel free to remove the tag. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will place an RFC, do you know which category it fall under? Sherzo (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would come under History and geography. Good luck! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"partial rv; blind users who alt text is aimed at are not going to know what the Port River is"
a) Blind users are blind, not stupid. They will know precisely that "the Port River" is a river.
b) "Port River" is FAR more descriptive than "a body of water", which can mean almost anything.
Pdfpdf (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or hinted that they were stupid; don't put words in my mouth. It is discouraged to include text that refers specificly to a particular subject, but rather a description. A "body of water" is a description, "Port River" is not. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, per WP:ALT, the alt text is supposed to describe roughly what the picture looks like - and remember that when using a screen reader the text of the caption is also read out, so something like the specific name fo the river is better in the caption, becuase then it helps everybody, but the alt should stick to descriptive wording, so "body of water" is much better in this instance since in the picture it's not at all obvious that it's actually a river as opposed to a lake or whatever. David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce: I didn't, and don't, put any words in anyone's mouths. They're my words. To paraphrase your somewhat impolite response "I never said or hinted" that they were your words. Please stop putting words in MY mouth. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David: in the picture it's not at all obvious that it's actually a river as opposed to a lake or whatever. - You confuse me. As it's "not obvious", would it not be better to clarify the fact that it is a river? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No because if it's not obvious even to someone who can see the picture, the place to clarify is in the caption, not the alt text. David Underdown (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I get the picture. (Pun intended ;-) Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLII (August 2009)
From the coordinators The voting phase of the eighth coordinator elections, for the October–March term, started on 13 September and will run until 23:59 Sat 26 September. Each candidate garnering twenty or more endorsements will be appointed, to a maximum of fifteen. This election has a strong field of sixteen candidates running, offering many skills and representing all aspects of the project. The Contest Department is going from strength to strength and drew a massive number of entries in August (see the results below). If you haven't fielded any entries yet, please think about doing so. It's great fun!  Roger Davies talk 14:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]	Articles of note New featured articles: Convoy GP55 George Koval HMS Endeavour James Newland John Lerew Kaiser class battleship Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) König class battleship Siward, Earl of Northumbria Unification of Germany Victoria Cross for Australia New featured lists: List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign Marine Corps Brevet Medal Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo New featured pictures: "Students Going to Man the Fortifications" "Our New 'First Lord' at Sea" New A-Class articles: 24th Infantry Division (United States) Bayern class battleship Derfflinger class battlecruiser Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld Ellis Wackett No. 3 Commando Operation Pleshet SMS König SMS Hindenburg
Project news People with an interest in clearly presenting battle information, and First World War buffs, will find the discussion about a new campaign box for the Battle of the Somme interesting. With the recent increase in enthusiasm, Wikipedia-wide, for creating "outline" articles, there's an ongoing discussion here. The idea is to produce guidelines for overview articles for Milhist editors and reviewers. Proposals have been made to introduce a new self-scoring "honour" system for Contest Department entries. Contributions, especially from regular nominees, are welcome.
Contest Department The Contest department has completed its twenty-ninth month of competition, with 145 articles entered by 13 editors. Sturmvogel 66 was placed first again this month with an amazing 101 points, closely followed by Georgejdorner at 98 points. They receive the Chevrons and the Writer's Barnstar respectively. Parsecboy commendably came third with 88 points, with honorable mentions going to AustralianRupert (68), Kumioko (66), Ed! (32), Ian Rose (26) and radek (11). Our thanks go to AM, David Underdown, Work permit, Yellow Monkey and Wild Wolf, who also fielded entries.
Awards and honours The Milhist A-Class medal goes to: Parsecboy for König class battleship, SMS König, and Derfflinger class battlecruiser; and to Ed! for 7th Infantry Division (United States), 24th Infantry Division (United States) and I Corps (United States).
Editorial: Getting to FAC via A-Class - some interesting new facts Well, it’s official. Milhist articles have a much better than average chance of success as featured article candidates. MBK004 has done some useful number-crunching following the fortunes of the 97 Milhist featured article candidates submitted between January and July this year. The research shows that 70% of Milhist articles were promoted against an overall average of 51%. Looking behind the figures, some other interesting facts emerge. First, 84% of our promoted articles had successfully passed a Milhist A-Class Review before going on to FAC. Second, of the 29 Milhist articles that failed, less than half (41%) had had an A-Class Review. Third, the 97 Milhist articles accounted for 16% of all FACs submitted between January and July of this year. The clear lesson is that if you want a string of featured articles to your credit, you may find Milhist's A-class Review process to be of benefit to you!  Roger Davies talk
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooper-Smart, John; Courtney, Christine (2003). Port Adelaide: Tales from a "Comodious Harbour". Friends of the South Australian Maritime Museum. ISBN 0-646-42058-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"although born in Medindie in 1914, Sgt Thomas Currie "Diver" Derrick grew up on Lefevre Peninsula".....There is now a Derrick Memorial Reserve on Carlisle St, Glanville. pages 299-303
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's strange that no other source seems to mention this. I will have another look through my sources to see if I missed anything, though. Does the above mention when the family moved to Port Adelaide? Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's implied obviosly YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry for the delay in reply mate, but I have been quite busy with some school related stuff and completely forgot about this. I have re-checked all of my sources and still nothing stipulates that Derrick lived/grew up in Lefevre Peninsula. Nothing, of course, states the opposite either; they are rather vague and lacking in his early years, really. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your review comments here, I was wondering if you feel the issues you raised have been successfully resolved and if you'd consider giving the article a support !vote. Thankyou for your time. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wells guard inspection Malaya.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Stifle (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It's not that informative, but just in case you haven't seen it, this is pretty well done. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'd never noticed or seen that site before. Thanks for bringing it to my notice, mate! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, its not urgent. I am interested in the details of your past experience. AshLin (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for your interesting question that has made me think, :-) and once again apologise for the delay in reply. I think, initially and primarily, the plan was, and is, to motivate and encourage editors to both join the project as something they are interesting in, but also in the sustained creation, development and cultivation of articles as a whole within the project‘s scope. This has been aided and assisted by the further development of the contest department—a major overhaul is currently underway, as well as the creation of a new, specialist contest—and the development of systematic and encouraging awards, such as the A-Class Medal and its extensions.

In regards to achievement, well, anything is possible really! However, I would be immensely proud and satisfied in a WikiProject that was/is encouraging and helpful to its members, has experience and knowledge, but is additionally focused on building, moulding a comprehensive and well developed encyclopaedia. In all truth, I believe Milhist does satisfy the majority of these criterion, but just requires a bit of a polish and further tweaking.

Naturally, as in life, things do and have irritated me on Wikipedia, but nothing I can recall has in my role as a Coord; I have been very happy, and proud, to have served the project in this role, particularly with the helpful and brilliant Coords I had the pleasure to work with. I cannot speak too highly of all of them. To the new team, I would suggest continuing in the footsteps of their predecessors, and for new Coords to follow their instincts and learn from the guidance and assistance offered and presented from their fellow Coords.

Thanks and cheers! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most interesting response. I wish you all the very best for the elections and thank you for the effort you put in these last six months! AshLin (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom! And the same to you, our mighty Lead! ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		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) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence as well; hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, we are talking about you; I'm positive you will do well. Thanks for the barnstar, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit and the associated comment: "(rv; unsourced):.
Please explain how: "According to his birth certificate, from Victorian Birth Death & Marriage Registra" (sic) qualifies as "unsourced". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here, I believe, that specifically points to the exact source, which contradicts both itself and other sources. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. However, I'm sorry, but I don't understand it.

• "There is nothing here" - Where?
• "that specifically points to the exact source" - "his birth certificate, from Victorian Birth Death & Marriage Registra" sounds specific and exact to me. Am I missing something?
• "which contradicts both itself and other sources." - I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying the birth certificate contradicts itself? If so, how could it contradict itself?

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the article. What I mean is that there is nothing pointing exactly to "his birth certificate, from Victorian Birth Death & Marriage Registra", nor anything that states that is specificlly the right Maygar. In contradicts itself by stating "not 1872 like his official documentation states", and what is stated in other sources. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it would seem I have made an error here. I just checked the ADB entry on Maygar, and also one of the sources present in the article, and they agree with the 1868 birth. I have no idea where someone pulled 1872 from then. I will revert my erroneous edit. Thanks for correcting my error. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you to credit me, but it is underserved. I am just confused. It is you who have sorted it out and fixed it. If my question was helpful for you, then I'm glad to have been helpful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abraham, B.S.. You have new messages at Talk:Frederick Birks/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.