User talk:Skinny87/Archive3

DYK for Australian Made

Just leave a note for posterity - this isn't my award! Skinny87 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how your nick ended up in the creds, it appears you didn't make a single edit to the article in question! I will transfer the DYK to the article creator instead. Thanks for the tip-off. Gatoclass (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx, Skinny87, somehow a DYK meant for us was awarded your way. The confusion must have occurred because you're also hard-working, modest and nice. Both Dan arndt (talk) and I appreciate due credit, hope your wiki experiences are just as rewarding.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Varsity

Hi, my pleasure. Interesting article! Kaisershatner (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bombing

Skinny: You might be interested in The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945. Jörg Friedrich. Columbia University Press, New York, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0231133807.

It's not a great book, but it's exhaustive and an important topic. Sca (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks! I'll try and find it through a library - I plan to give Varsity a spring cleaning in a little while! Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Coordinator of the
Military history Project
March 2009 — October 2009

Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe N 01:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Your voice

I see you are adding your voice to others. I just happen to disagree with what a lot of you (and others) are saying. I think it is somewhat biased. Just because we disagree doesn't mean you are correct, or me, for that matter. You will naturally get more support, as you are in the mainstream (current consensus) thinking for Wikipedian administrators. That doesn't mean it is correct thinking. If I don't think it is, I will certainly discuss it. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Airborne barnstar

I put this together - what do you think? It could perhaps do with a little tidying up round the edges (parts of the parachute look messy and the top of the barnstar should be slightly in shadow), but if you like the idea that won't take long to do. My other thought was a few parachuting barnstars appearing to jump out of a 'plane, but given the restricted image size it might be difficult to tell what it's supposed to be :P EyeSerene^talk

Thanks very much! Do you have any colour preferences etc for the barnstar? EyeSerene^talk 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a template version here, with usage instructions etc. If you want any changes that you aren't comfortable making yourself, let me know ;) Sample below:

{{subst:Airborne Warfare Barnstar|message ~~~~}} produces

		The Airborne Warfare Barnstar
		message EyeSerenetalk 11:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is OK it will also need to be added to the WikiProject award lists here. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. The main heading like look good in maroon?  Roger Davies ^talk 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Airborne Warfare Barnstar
		message EyeSerenetalk 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Better? EyeSerene^talk 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I think so but it's entirely Skinny's call :)  Roger Davies ^talk 16:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, red does look better. Skinny87 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, excellent. I'll add it to the awards list. EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I've fixed them (don't think I missed any!) EyeSerene^talk 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar added to WP:WPPA (thanks to the alphabetical listing, virtually to the top of the page :P). Please feel free to edit the awarding instructions if necessary. EyeSerene^talk 17:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You could add it here too :)  Roger Davies ^talk 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done EyeSerene^talk 08:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar, Skinny, it was an unexpected delight! Very well designed, might I add, by you and EyeSerene as well. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delivered for the WikiCup by  GARDEN  at 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.

Hope to see you...

On Saturday... Majorly talk 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5

You've expressed interest in Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5; I'm just coming to give you the details and a reminder. We will be meeting on 4 April at The Manchester & County near Picadilly train station at around 1:00pm (although some will be turning up an hour early). There will be a Wikimedia sign to identify us, I believe. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

Sure. I am always willing to learn. Wallie (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Airborne Warfare Barnstar

Hi, mate. You left an Airborne Warfare Barnstart on my talk page. I don't think it was meant to be for me. I think you meant to give it to Parsecboy? I wouldn't want to wear an honour that wasn't mine...AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And something for you ...

		The Airborne Warfare Barnstar
		For your energy and enthusiasm in developing our coverage of airborne warfare articles, including work on two Featured Articles – Operation Varsity and 13th Airborne Division – and various Good Articles including 11th Airborne Division, 17th Airborne Division, Operation Tonga and Battle of Fort Eben-Emael, I award you this Airborne Warfare Barnstar. Well done!  Roger Davies talk 06:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907

Per request, your reminder to check for sources ;-)

I've had a surprisingly hard time finding much on this. There's quite a lot which sounds relevant, but then turns out to be too late - it all begins with the formation of the Territorial Force in 1908, rather than with the run-up to it and the Act itself. I had high hopes for Mitchinson's Defending Albion, but to no avail... Shimgray | talk | 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem - as I say, I had much the same result! Shimgray | talk | 11:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Market Garden

Is the sandbox stuff your work then Skinny? I assume much of the article is your doing and very well done it is too I think. I would hazard a few suggestions about certain details, such as avoiding commas either side of 'and', 'but' and 'or' but that's just me[;-); the time of arrival in Nijmegen of XXX Corps and the personnel involved in the river crossing (no-one seems to remember the Royal Engineers who made several round trips ferrying the paras or the relief of the paras by Guards Armoured). I'm not convinced by Gavin's diary entry about British 'tops' being ignorant of conditions either - Dempsey, DSO, MC; Monty, DSO; Browning, DSO; Urquhart, DSO, blah, blah. Did he write it contempraneously or was here a little post hoc polishing to deflect criticism? Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tetrarch_(tank)#War_office_reaction

You might want to comment on this before I start shoveing stuff into the article.Geni 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Silver Star

OK. I was sure I had seen it. I knew Tony, as his son (also Tony) was in the same class as me at school. I saw his medal collection too. He said he had medals from five different countries, but only those from Britain and Poland are listed here. I was sure the Silver Star was there, but may have got in confused, as you say. It could have been a Polish award. Air force officers can get the Silver Star. Johnny Checketts did. [1] I defintely saw Johnny's medal - that's why I knew what it looked like. My mother was used to play as Johnny's partner in badminton. She helped him study to pass his exams to get into the force. He was a mechanic and did not have formal quals. She said he talked all the time about going to the war - very determined. I have put up stuff about Johnny, which could be considered a memorial. However,I think he is notable too. Wallie (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Skinny87, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Herkules

I remember you asking about Airborne operation some time ago, I have found this one Operation Herkules for the planned airborne invasion of Malta which may be of interest. Not much detail but could be a starter if your interested --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis

An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

London meetup

You asked to be reminded. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For swiftly removing the vandalism you accidentally re-added to today's featured article ;) (I think that about three of four admins piled onto that vandal, but I got the kill!). Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 13:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 17:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

1st Air Commando

Copied from my talk page.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr Smith. I have been receiving letters from a Mr Glubbdrubb on the article on the 1st Air Cdo Grp saying it needs references. I'm rather mystified as I have quite a few with the article. Could you assist please? Thank youFoofbun (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. You may wish to consider contacting Skinny87, who is our resident airborne warfare expert: he's much better informed than I am.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Mr Skinny., (not mentioned in 'Starship Troopers' are you?) So could you explain what is going on as I'm rather new to Wikipedia (well, rather new to doing things correctly). Does Wikipedia have 'experts' who have to make sure all articles are correct through their references? It's good to know. I've been rather confused by lines 'this article has no references' when it does. Could you please explain how it works?

It's good to know there's people who have 'antiquarian' books who can add to an article; what drew me to Wikipedia editing in the first place is that all the new stuff is in droves but anything older than the internet doesn't seem to exist! I've included stuff from John Masters book for a British perspective.

About the best book I've read on the unit was one written during the war by Lowell Thomas, 'Back to Mandalay'. It mentions their uniforms (jumpsuits, jungle boots) but I'd like to find a copy again so I can give a direct quote.Foofbun (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Varsity and Canadians

Just a question; i have noticed that you have reverted several edits by other users to remove Canada from the combatants list due to them not being involved. Was the Canadain para brigade not attached to the division as it was for Tonga?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there was only a battalion attached to 6th Airborne Division, and it didn't seem (to me, at least) to qualify because that's a small unit and it wasn't independent - like the Poles at Arnhem, for example. Obviously I'm open to discussion on the matter, but none of my sources call it an American-British-Canadian airborne operation, as one user tried to label it some time back. Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather like the argumetns at Battle of Britain then Poles and Commonwealth airforces all under RAF operational control, so we list combatants as British only. David Underdown (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Poles and other nationalities flying under RAF command during the BOB is a different issue; they were not considered a sovereign force. On the other hand, if my understanding is correct, the Canadian para battalion was a Canadian military unit on loan to the British 6th Airborne. I would find a better parrell to be that of the Kiwis, South Africans and Aussies etc in the 8th Army.

While i agree that its probably more correct to call the operation Anglo-American, or whatever, and sources back that up i would have thought it would have correct to acknowlege the Canucks in the info box.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EnigmaMcmxc in regards to Canadian involvement being treated like other nationalities in the 8th Army. Perhaps an even better example to follow would be the article on the Battle of the Scheldt, where the flags of nations who had troops involved (even down to the Belgians and Norwegians in No. 10 Inter-Allied Commando) are represented. All were under Canadian operational control. McMuff (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Wonder if you could help?

As I've mentioned, I'm tryign to do am article on Sir David Campbell, finding decent sources has been a bit of a struggle, but doing some searching on Google books it looks like there might be a decent article in the Army Quarterly and Defence Journal 1988 (p194), but we don't seem to take it here, and nor is it in JSTOR. Does your uni library have it by any chance? David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Igor Kurchatov

Hi,you mention you have DeGroot's Hell on Earth which may help with Igor Kurchatov. Just a friendly reminder to do whatever seems best to help the article along. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PIAT

"...[it] might have been designed by Heath Robinson after a drunken dinner of lobster au gratin."

I've just had a quick skim through the copy that's to hand. It's in "Sittang Bend", the penultimate chapter (or section, they're not named as such), about 20 or 30 pp. from the end of the book - pp.193-214 in this edition. Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the 50th Div info, am sure there will be a bunch more elsewhere:

"After this success, Harris [a tank commander] sensibly moved [his Firefly] to another fire position where he was able to shelter behind a cottage and thus get some cover. Retaliatoy fire was now arimed at him by the second Panther, which had only been disabled and still presented a real threat. Something had to be done to silence it, so Mogg decided to lead a tank-hunting part out personally, to knock it out with a PIAT. He took with him a sergeant and a private from nearby D Company and they crept stealthily forward until they were only some 15 metres from the enemy vehicle. 'Right,' said Mogg, 'when i say fire, fire!' To his chagrin he then discovred that neither of his companions knew how to fire a PIAT. Fortunately, however, he did and he then succeeded in knocking out the Panther."

Forty, Villers-Bocage, p. 172 - full book details can be foound here: Operation Perch

The story of Harris, a Firefly tank commander, can be found in the June 14 section. Mogg is Major John Mogg the second in command of the 9th battalion Durham Light Infantry but was acting as the commanding officer during the above event due to the CO being killed. (pp. 163, 164, 166).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely "The Maple Lead against the Axis" (1995 and 2001 by Bercuson). I'll check my books to see if there's anything on the PIAT in them. Cam ^(Chat) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Taylor's Villers Bocage p. 65 gives one Tiger tank possibly destroyed by a PIAT and another deffo immobilsed during the infamous battle.

Lloyd Clark's Operation Epsom has the 5th Battalion Duke of Cornwalls Light Infantry clearing and capturing the village of le Haut du Bosq before being counterattacked by 6 Panthers of the 1st Battalion 3rd Panzer Regiment, 2nd Panzer Division; of which 1 turned over, another fled and the remaining 4 were all knocked out by PIAT fire in the one action (on the 27th June i do believe). (p. 68)

Wilmot p. 300 - doesnt give too much details but yet another Panther being knocked out by aPIAT, this one a Canadian kill.

Copp in fields of fire gives a few accounts of Panthers being disabled, knocked out and driven off by PIAT fire but no chunky info.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

'Raising Churchill's Army' by David French has on p.89, 'PIAT....In theory its hollow charge projectile could penetrate 100mm. of armour at 100 yards. But[sic] trials carried out early in 1944 confirmed contrary field experience in Sicily. Even a skilled man scored less than 60% hits at 100 yards and because of faulty fuzes only three-quarters of hits actually detonated. Even so, during the opening weeks of the Normandy campaign, when much of the fighting was semi-static, PIATs accounted 7% of all German tanks destroyed by British troops, which compared favourably to the 6% destroyed by aircraft rockets. But[sic] when the Germans responded to hollow charge weapons by fitting light armoured skirts to their tanks,...the PIAT lost much of its effectiveness.

I think this passage might help but it also demonstrates some muddle - did the German tanks not have aprons before D-Day? What was the comparative accuracy of the PIAT at 100 yards? Sixty per cent seems to me to be pretty good going! Do you have any idea what 'Semi-Static' means?:o)Keith-264 (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) It's odd isn't it that there seems to be plenty of anecdotal evidence that British and Canadian troops used PIATs to good effect (though I suppose we don't hear much from those soldiers killed in the attempt). Enigma's references (Daglish, Operation Epsom has some too) have several examples of German tank attacks being stalked by PIAT teams rather than setting off stampedes to the rear. I don't know of anywhere which has a measure of the inherent accuracy of the weapon but I do remember reading somewhere that PIAT operators were trained to engage at long range to increase the number of shots they could have. I like French's book but it does contain muddled thinking - 'semi-static' might mean movement over short distances but really he shouldn't be using static to mean anything but stationary. I fear that his vocabulary shows a bias towards 'manoeuvre warfare' despite the reality of 'positional warfare' that precedes and follows manoeuvre. I've shifted a lot of my books again so they're not available for the details but I've been through the indeces of the ones I've got. Not much there I'm afraid. 'Schurtzen'?Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Schurtzen are the side skirts (not sure if the name also applies to the same type of armour placed around the turret) but am sure these were being fitted to armoured vehicles well before Normandy. According to Acthung Panzer (the website not the book :p) the Ausf Gs were the first to recieve the skirts so were talking 1942/1943 ish--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In case you need a visual reference. This image highlights the sideskirts and the turret ones: link--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, cheers. I thought the name was familiar! Skinny87 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the rewritten article is ok, stick it in. The ORS2 report giving 7% was from a sample of captured tanks so it doesn't include those knocked out and recovered. 7 x MkV and 1 x PzIV (6 Jun - 7 Aug), 1 x MkV (8 - 31 Aug). Nine altogether suggests to me that relatively few tanks 'knocked out' were 'write offs' unless the ground they were on was captures and held (PP. 399-401 'Montgomery's Scientists...', Terry Copp, [Ed].).Keith-264 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on PIAT, you've gone for Sticky bomb next I see. Though after putting aside the Boys. Is your focus Britain's WWII anti-tank weapons or Britain's "quirky" weapons (for want of a better word)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I read a good anecdote yesterday about an Officer and a PIAT in 'The Recollections of Rifleman Bowlby' if you're interested.Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Hello? have I gone invisible? :o)Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Jolly good!Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First Allied Airborne Army

I see your listed as a maintainer of this page. I was wondering about the designation of this formation as being in the branch "Air Force." Looking at the force structure, it appears to have consisted of a corps of U.S. Army units, another corps of British, Polish, and French army units, a troop carrier command of U.S. Army Air Force plains, and two group transport commands of RAF units. The commanding officer was USAAF, but both of the airborne corps were commanded by army officers. So wasn't this a unified command of some sort, consisting of both Air Force and Army units? john k (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statistically significant other

Is she still looking for the Crimean War stuff? Only I spoke to a friend, who spoke to a friend, who has access to all the parliamentary archives. If you give me a precise title (I forgot it) I can probably send a PDF over or summat. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My girlfriend might have a problem with that, haha. I'll see what I can do. Ironholds (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Any information on who chaired the committee? Ironholds (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I can also pick out any medical reports from the army from the same period, if you like. Remind me, the subject is mental health and whatnot in the army? Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Right, I can't seem to find such a document :(. I have several useful bits and one likely contenter, however:

  Five reports from the Select Committee on the state of the British Army

  A report on the state of British medical facilities

  "Report on the pathology of the diseases of the army in the East" (they didn't classify PTSD and whatnot as mental illnesses at the time, simply unexplained physical ones, so I'm guessing that'd be helpful. Also a likely contender.)

  "Medical and surgical history of the British army which served in Turkey and the Crimea during the war against Russia in the years 1854-55-56"

  Independent of that I found a snippet of Edgar Jones's Shell Shock to PTSD: Military Psychiatry from 1900 to the Gulf War which makes some reference to the Crimean War/Blue Book and might be helpful. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Very difficult: it'll take at least fifteen seconds :P. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• You need to email me your email addy - the WP email function doesn't allow attachments. I think I might be seeing where we went wrong - there wouldn't be a "blue book on the crimean war" there would be a "report of the select committee of the house of commons on the crimean war" or something. Can you ask Charlotte if she is referring to the Roebuck Committee, which investigated the medical services post-sevastapol? Ironholds (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on World War II

Regarding your comment on the World War II talk page, thanks for getting involved. As you are probably aware, Wikipedia is the number one search result for most terms relating to World War II. It's important that people learn what happened. Sole Flounder (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A reminder...

that - as I assume you will get this not earlier than about 20 mins - Wikipedia:Meetup/London 21 is on schedule for tomorrow. WilliamH (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Omaha Beach Origin

I'd appreciate your help with this situation, as it seems you are more up to speed on Wikipedia contributions than I am, and obviously my persistence is quickly becoming more "spam" than contribution.

It just seems to me that group consensus does not, by itself, define history.

It can be reasonably assumed that the attachment of "Omaha" to "Omaha Beach" was not just the result of pure chance. So far, history can give no definitive reason behind the origin of the name and probably never will be. Still, if anyone reads the article rather than just skeptically skimming it, it does give a reasonable explanation and has evidence which may back up the theory.

Why people in any way involved with this page would purposely decide to omit a reasonable account of the origin of the name of one of the most historic places in history mystifies me.

When many points contained in the writings of this man are backed up by military records and numerous interviews, I'm not sure that it is reasonable to conclude that the consensus of various peoples editing wikipedia is somehow more reliable, and yet many who have edited it are obviously knowledgeable.

My contribution was submitted with proper references, cautiously written with every effort to put the piece in a relevant section of the article. I'm unsure of how to get fair treatment for this information, rather than having it summarily dismissed without a discussion. It certainly meets the guidelines for verifiability and is deserving of just such a discussion. I'm also unsure if my point is truly in error or if it is just overzealous dedication to skepticism that is ruling the day here.

Thanks for any help or insight you can offer. Cmetian (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)cmetian

---

Forward air control

The forward air control article contains coverage on British, Australian, and Indian FACs at present. It is projected to cover Lao, Vietnamese, Khmer, and New Zealander pilots before I am done. I am continuing my search for other nationalities. What more can I do for NPOV?

Historical fact (at least to this point in my research) is that a majority of the FACs who have ever flown were Americans. So is political correctness to trump history?

Granted, the Vietnam war section is unruly at present. However, I am transitioning the info on the 19th and 20th TASS to their own linked articles, will do the same with 21st, 22nd, 23rd, etc. Then I will produce as condensed an account of Vietnam as I can.

This is my first attempt at illustrating an article. I thought FAC aircraft appropriate. If they are not, then feel free to remove them. I (and the readers) would appreciate it if you supplied replacement illustrations.

Lastly, please tip me off as to what is unencyclopedic in my style, so I can mend my ways.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Your participation in shaping the Forward air control article would be appreciated. Please see its talk page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pegasus Bridge

Hi and thanks for the thanks :). My interest (very amateur) is in D-Day in general and the UK/Canadian operations in particular; I travel with a party of 12/13 yr old students to Bernières-sur-Mer each July and visit Arromanches, Bayeux and Pegasus Bridge and have become increasingly interested in the region and the events of June 1944. Not sure how much I'll be able to contribute, but would be willing to help if needed. TheSmuel (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed Horsa

Hi S, please look at User:Bzuk/Sandbox/New Article as it is a much more radical change to the referencing and citing that was present in the article you are editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC).Hi S. I saw that there were some inherent errors in the formatting of the references, for example, there was slight variants in the writing of the Harvard citations which I began to fix, then I noted that the APA templates that you were using had other input errors that were harder to fix. I resorted to rewriting the whole entry in "scratch cataloging" but did not want to make a vast change without consulting you first. As to the writing, research phase, I think you are doing a great job and I had only very minor suggestions to make as again, I did not want to disturb the "flow." What about this idea? you finish the body of the text and then a number of edits can be made to integrate the reference/cites. I have been involved in a number of FA reviews and my background being in the library at least can provide you with a consistent and well-laid out bibliographical referencing. FWiW, same goes for your other opus! Bzuk (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Thorne

A tag has been placed on Andrew Thorne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Irving on Freshman

There's nothing about the Norwegian police arresting anyone in the Wigan book, but I perhaps see where the claim comes from. When the Germans arrived at the second crash site (to arrest survivors) they were accompanied by "two Norwegian nazis" according to Wigan (p. 67). He makes, however, no reference to these men being police officers (although it is not impossible). In any case, the two Norwegians appear to have played no role in the actual arrests, which Wigan clearly states were carried out by the Germans. I hope that helps. Cool3 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, who knows. Cool3 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

General Aircraft Hotspur

Please see: [2]] for another "take" on this article. FWiW, sorry about the accidental deletion of your statements on the development phase of the Airspeed Horsa. I think I have restored all the "lost" edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC). Here are some points, the usual standard for a minor article leading section or introduction is actually a paragraph, while the variants section is generally a list. The variants section has already been referenced in the development section which is heavily cited. As to the writing, it is fine but very repetitive in that the second paragraph of the lede was already in the next section and the variants section was really a description of the development not a listing of the variants. FWiW, I can hold off till you have made the text come out to what you want before other revisions are made. You may also want to check the Slingsby Hengist article. Bzuk (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

S, have a good break, I'm off myself soon to take in Maple Flag (the Canadian equivalent of Red Flag) so I will also be checking off soon myself. To allay your concerns, I will certainly make sure that everything is well referenced. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

General Aircraft Hamilcar

Hi Sk, the article on the Hamilcar had some of the same issues in ref/cites that I was trying to resolve, and sparked the comment to myself that there is "work to be done." As for the writing/research, it is fine but seems to have repetitive statements, and on first blush, I thought to myself, there were only 300 odd aircraft? the type was only used in three actions? yet there is a "major" article on it? Just thoughts, mind you, but if I were writing the piece, I think I would cut down some of the major sections, especially the lede which is intended to be an introductory statement and overall review of importance. Due to the expansiveness of the article, I was also playing with the consolidation and column spacing of the citations. FWiW, the glider articles are a great "workshop" exercise for me as they are completely out of my interest areas, but allow me to flex my edit muscles a bit. Bzuk (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC). BTW, the aforementioned edit comment is one of those pesky "copy/paste" statements that I have stored in my computer browser memory and even beginning a passage, the rest of the statement pops up and invariably, I am too lazy/rushed/distracted to do anything other than just accept the "paste" prompt and go on. Bzuk (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

The lede is an area of some considerable debate still among editors as it was originally intended to be just that, only a clarification of the notability of the subject. As articles began to be developed further, the ledes took on a "foreword" type of approach with longer and more detailed passages that were incorporated. I am still of the "old school" of providing a brief, overriding "statement of purpose" for the reader. Now, to fill you in on some of my background, I was an academic librarian for over 30 years before going over to the "dark side" as an author and editor for trade publications. I make my living as the executive director of an aviation association but due to a wonderful secretary and a caring/helpful/understanding wife, I am "allowed" to do my writing on the side. I now have nine books in print, 13 films on which I have done various odd jobs, hundreds of magazine/journal articles and a trade magazine that I regularly edit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

I need your mentorship

Hi,

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need your advice concerning WP:WPOOK, which I've been coordinating. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia.

The goals of the WikiProject are:

1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
2. Complete the existing outlines
3. Create an outline for every subject that is extensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
5. Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
6. Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
7. Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

I'm very interested in your comments on how to achieve these goals.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. But how do I do it?

Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your advice.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Please recommend anyone you know who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this. Or ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors. I welcome any and all recommendations and advice you might have.

And any thoughts on attaining the WikiProject goals above.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

General Aircraft Hotspur continued

To allay your concerns, the lede fits well with the "standard" review of the subject's importance. As to references, the exacting Harvard Citation and Modern Language Style guide was used throughout to correct the errors in input to the templates. Templates are NOT required and many editors are adamant that they are an abhorrent mess. They are improperly designed and were only intended to be an assist while now many editors rely on them, despite the "bugginess" inherent in their design. They use ISO dating, for Pete's sake (whoever Pete is, excuse the mild assperation here). FWiW, I corrected a number of errors in the text this morning; one of the problems that occurs when there is lack of authoritative resources. Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

In checking the photographs I added from the IWM Collection, I found that the first was a Hotspur I while the second being a Hotspur II and the third was a Hotspur III in flight training, so that made it useful to keep all three photographs to help readers differentiate between the variants (albeit the MK II and MK III are externally identical). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

John Howard

Hi mate, not sure if you are back to working on wiki yet, but if you are I'd appreciate if you could help me out. I've come back to working on John Howard (British Army officer) and am trying to get it up to a B class standard before the D-Day anniversary when one expects it would get quite a few hits. It is currently a start, but I feel that it is very close to a B. I think I've fixed up the coverage issue, but there are still a couple of citations that I'm missing. I was hoping that maybe you might have something that could be used. I've put the citation needed tags where I feel they are needed. If you could take a look, I'd really appreciate it. Also, the article needs a better image, currently it has just got a flag and not an image of Howard. Do you know of any PD or fair use images of Major Howard at all?

Sorry to bother you if you are busy, I just thought that given your work on other airborne articles, you might be interested in helping out. Incidentally, I've been working on Richard Winters also, in an effort to get that up to B class in the same time frame. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this article. It's looking good now. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your recent rv on 11th Airborne Div

Thought it might help to know that the material you removed was also a cut/paste copyvio (see [3]). I'll continue with the world's slowest copyedit - I apologise for the time it's taking, but I'm having to squeeze it in between other RL stuff. EyeSerene^talk 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That might be helpful - if he'll agree to accepting some assistance I'd be willing to unblock. I've opened a discussion on ANI if you're interested in commenting there too (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review requested). EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. EyeSerene^talk 11:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your offer of mentoring. It's increasingly looking like nothing will come of it, but it does you credit nonetheless - actually, I'm constantly amazed and encouraged by the good nature and endless patience of the vast majority of our editors (spend too much time at ANI and it's easy to get impression this place is full of vandals, POV warriors and trolls). Don't worry about your articles - nothing can happen to them that can't be fixed - and concentrate on your studies, they're far more important ;) Incidentally, I grew up in Coventry so know Warwick Uni quite well... the band I was in as a teenager even played at the Arts Centre there :P EyeSerene^talk 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium (1940)

Hi

As you have contributed to the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael and know quite a bit about it I was wondering whether you could help with the above article? Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Eben-Emael

Curse my typos!  ;) Source: Josef Durčák, Pohraničhí Opevnění (Boarder Fortifications), AVE Opavska 1998. I have another book with details, but cannot remember the title. PS, was planning to add the citation, but you put fire under my ars. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Add to that these refs:
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobro%C5%A1ov_(d%C4%9Blost%C5%99eleck%C3%A1_tvrz)#P.C4.9Bchotn.C3.AD_srub_N-D-S_72_.22M.C5.AFstek.22

and
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/fortebenemael.aspx Training began in earnest. Student's assault groups practiced assaulting Czech fortifications in the Sudetenland which resembled the target fortifications (Ellis 24-25) (Ellis, Chris. 7th Fliefer Division: Student's Fallschirmjager Elite. Spearhead. Surrey: Ian Allan Publishing, 2002. 18-50.).
Good evidence for my additions. I am trying to find which bunkhouses in Czech where used. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious, to test top secret explosives in sight of enemy forces (just across the boarder). I did not catch that reference to testing earlier. Conclusively, the Germans did use the CBF for extensive bunker-destructing weapons, and there is a lot of supporting evidence, most in Czech, of course. Cheers! --Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Front....Doh!

Re: "Some scholars of the conflict use the term Russo-German War, while others use Soviet-German War, Nazi-Soviet War, German-Soviet War, or Axis-Soviet War."

Some scholars do not deserve the name, are not historians willing to use the right words to describe what they write about, or are popularist...not my fault.

So the choices:

• Russo-German War - The first mentioned should surely be the initiator. Still, did Russians attack Germans? No. Was it a war exclusively between ethnic Russians and Germany? No
• Soviet-German War - Did Soviet Union attack Germany? No.
• Nazi-Soviet War - Were the members of the Nazi Party the only combatants in the War? No.
• German-Soviet War - Was it a solely Germany versus USSR war? No.
• Axis-Soviet War - my vote is that this is the best of all names, because when Soviet Union finally allied with the UK, it was already at war with the Axis, that is Germany and Italy, but not with Japan. So, at hat time after the fall of France and before Barbarossa, what war was UK in? If you answered the Axis-British Commonwealth War, you are right even though Japan was not involved. There is just no other way to describe it unless you want the ire of all the Canadians, Indians, Australians, South Africans, New Zealanders and other members of the British Commonwealth by calling it Axis-British War, and German British War would of course ignore that to start with in North Africa there were no Germans for the Commonwealth troops to fight. History is a bitch :)

Lets see...common knowledge...the Axis i.e. Germany and Italy attacked Soviet Union. There is no rule that says every member of a coalition has to participate in a war. They attacked the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not "Russia". Even this is wrong because "Soviet" is derived from "Soviets" which is the Little Cold War name given to the initial formation of the USSR from its republics' soviets.

And of course there is this Template:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War

But of course being a "wikipedian" you will want sources on someone else supporting this as being the most correct name, right? And of course most "historians" don't think that deeply about it...whatever :)--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnhem

Hi Skinny. I notice you're quite into your airborne warfare articles and I was wondeing if you'd be interested in casting a fresh pair of eyes over the Battle of Arnhem article when you have time after your wikibreak. See if you think I've missed anything or if you think it could be expanded more and that kinda thing. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

11th Airborne

Just a couple of matters arising from the copyedit:

• The article makes extensive use of 'guerillas' - I wondered if some other term might be more appropriate (eg 'resistance fighters')?
• You might like to check this edit, which seems to have altered some sourced material. I left it in, but thought you should probably take a look.

Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick reply - I thought you were on Wikibreak... :D I don't have a problem with 'guerillas' if that's what the sources use; it carries slightly different connotations to 'resistance fighters', so maybe it's best if I leave well alone. EyeSerene^talk 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. You've had to deal with some idiots recently, but it would be a real shame if it turned you off to the whole thing. I sincerely hope to see you around and active again soon - nil carborundum and all that, and if you need anything, you know where my talk page is (or email if you prefer). Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate, that;s very kind of you :) I'll be back, I don't doubt that. But I've also got a lot of RL dissertation work to do at the moment that isn't helping. Skinny87 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with that... EyeSerene^talk 20:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Couple more points when/if you get a chance:]

• I added a little about continued Japanese resistance on Luzon—I believe they fought on until after Japan's surrender—but I don't know if that would be covered by your cite. It may be easier to take it back out if a source (which admittedly I don't have!) proves difficult to find.
• The article uses the Shimbu Group, but Shobu Group (no definite article). I've no idea what their translation would be, so don't know if that's correct usage.
• The linking needs looking over - I've been taking out wikilinks I've seen before, but it may still be overlinked in places.
• Conversion templates might be useful for some of the numbers (although most are converted, it's been done manually)
• Not sure about the relevance of the C-54 Skymaster pic

Hope all's well, EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done. All the best with its further development, and thanks for the opportunity to work on an interesting article and one outside my recent narrow range ;) Bon chance, EyeSerene^talk 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption?????

Hi - any chance to spare some time and to adopt a "newbie" interested in military history? Farawayman (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate your thoughts on my talk page. I don't usually try to engage with the things Mrg comes up with - I get nowhere with my main negotiation points - so thanks for putting the other side of the story. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Airborne VCs

Hiya Skinny! Lol, we were in the same boat on that first point. In regards to books, there are a few I can think of that might be of some help: Max Arthur's Symbol of Courage: The Men Behind the Medal has brief details on all VC recipients actions, and in some cases brief biographical details that might give you a starting base; I know that all four airborne VC recipients are mentioned in Bryan Perrett's For Valour: Victoria Cross and Medal of Honor Battles. Both of those I possess, so if you would like anythung from them just ask. :) There is quite a large number of books available on the VC and its recipients, but whether they would be of any help or are applicable to you I don't know. There may also be biographies available on the four airborne VCs, so you may want to check that out. Also, it might be an idea to contact Woody—the resident VC guru—or David Underdown, who works for the UK National Archives and has access to honours and awards recommendations for the Second World War. I hope this is at least some help. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Happened to spot this, let me know the names and I can certainly check if the VC recommendations still exist, if they do there's usually far more information than for other awards, often having in addition to the nomral recommendation the required statements from at least two witnesses about the action. I also have a book covering all the WWII VCs, it normally sets the action in a bit more context, and sometimes gives some further biographical info. I believe the process is now underway to transfer WWII service records from MOD to TNA, though it'll probably still be some time before they're readily available. TNA library may well also have regimental histories and so on which might help amplify other accounts. I know you only mention WWII here, but I suppose that ultimately any list of "Airborne" VCs would be incomplete wihtout the two won by 2PARA in the Falklands (though of course they were functioning as light infantry really during that campaign). David Underdown (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that none of those recommendations survive, I'll try to dig out the book later though. As a minimum the citation will be in the Gazette of course, let me know if you have any difficulty tracking those down, and I'll try to remember to dig out the book later on. I've also checked the ODNB, and none fo them have articles. For those KIA the CWGC website will confirm many details. David Underdown (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The structure you have done so far looks fine. You could either write about his VC action under the "Victoria Cross" heading and then follow that with the London Gazette citation, or write about his VC action under the "Victoria Cross" heading and put the London Gazette citation in the "Legacy" section. You can structure the article any way you would like really, I just usually follow the same basic structure ("Early life" --> "First/Second World" (with "Victoria Cross" subheading and any others if necessary) --> "Later life"). As examples, you might like to have a look at Percy Herbert Cherry and Clarence Smith Jeffries, both posthumous VC recipients of the First World War I have worked on. Also, Tom Derrick might be able to help a little; VC recipient of the Second World War that I brought up to Featured. Hope this helps! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Barnstar

Hey Skinny, thanks for the award. It looks kinda cute too! Lemme know if I can do anything to help, there's quite a lot of information on the individuals actions in the books I've used for the Battle of Arnhem. I wanna expand that article a bit too, to include their actions on the respective days. You might also find this useful for John Baskeyfield, but I've no idea how to reference it! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. [4]

This is nothing new as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender and the associated links clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WW2 UK Airborne memorial

Hi Skinny, I was singing the services in Westminster Abbey a few weekends ago, and when I saw this close to the rehearsal room, I thought you might be able to find a suitable home for a picture of it. David Underdown (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)