Jump to content

User talk:Ranger Steve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Owen spencer (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 20 November 2009 (→Lonsdale). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stonehenge

Thanks for putting that back, I missed it. We now have a later phase of Stonehenge being built before an earlier phase, if we believe the BBC. Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stonehenge Cursus

Updated DYK query On 24 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stonehenge Cursus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Larkhill

Updated DYK query On 3 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Larkhill, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnhem

It's all right matey, you get boggle-eyed after a while. People like you and Enigma put the meat on an article and me and the others cast a fresh pair of eyes over it. :o)Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amesbury Archer

I hope it's on your watchlist. Do see the talk page where you are accused of pov pushing. :-) Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. Dougweller (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you realise the guy is just a wind up merchant? You have more patience than I do ;-) Justin talk 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poles at Arnhem

Oh boy, now I don't know which description is correct. Are these paras on the picture British or Polish?? According to Wikimedia and Polish Institute and Sikorski Museum they are Poles...I'm totally confused now.--Jacurek (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hey, thank you so much for all the time you are putting into expanding that page. I follow it and I like it very, very much. I think it is going to be "1st class" article once finished.--Jacurek (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arnhem

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I would like to give you with this barnstar as my appreciation for the exceptional work on the Battle of Arnhem article. Thank you very much.--Jacurek (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Mentor

Thanks for your request, I'd be honoured to help out. You could create your draft review in your userspace if you like, or another alternative would be to post your review on the appropriate review page (click the link in the article talk-page header to create the page, if not already created), but not to transclude it to the article talk-page. Let me know if you need a hand with organising the review or any technical matters. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I thought I'd seen your username before - I responded to your post on the Military history WikiProject talk page not 30 minutes ago. Skating over my appalling lack of situational awareness, can I ask: have you thought about joining the project? You'd be most welcome... EyeSerenetalk 20:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies talk 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you aboard ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ranger Steve. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ranger Steve. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re GA etc

Looking forward to it. Nice work on the Arnhem article too - it's been a battle that's fascinated me since reading Urqhart's book as a kid. I still have it around somewhere. EyeSerenetalk 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will take a look over the weekend. EyeSerenetalk 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments left on the review page - please feel free to refactor/tweak/discard etc as you think best. EyeSerenetalk 21:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! All the best with the review ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems the most approbirate place to make a reply and applogies for the late reply. I try not to hold gruges; once everything quitens down its over with me. Ill take a look at the article this week and post some comments. Do you want me to wait until the GA review is open or not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol :) I will try and finish going over the article this week and leave additional feedback but on the whole the article does look good.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery

Updated DYK query On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject DYK 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Nominations

Hi you have two articles at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, Battle of Arnhem and Liberation of Arnhem both are well short of B class at the moment and will fail the GA process. Can I suggest you remove them from the list work on the fact tags and other points mentioned then re submit them. That would be better then to have them quick failed. I can see the work you have put in and it would be a shame to have them listed as failing. If I can help in any way just drop me a line. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on the good work the GA process at times is very slow so you may just finish the amendments before they come up.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Operation Pegasus

Updated DYK query On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Pegasus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re GA review

Thanks for your note. The article has significantly improved as a result of your review, and since any remaining issues are down to subjective interpretations of the GA criteria, personally I'd be inclined to pass it. I think it's important not to be over-strict at GA, so if an editor has a good reason why they feel a reviewer comment shouldn't be implemented I usually withdraw my objection (unless it's one of the cast-iron ones such as image licensing or referencing). However, if you believe there are sticking points that absolutely need to be addressed you should, of course, stick to your guns or come to some sort of compromise ;) Nice work on the review! EyeSerenetalk 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: forgot to mention that I prefer your version as I think it's better organised, but that doesn't mean the original isn't GA standard. I think a copyedit along the lines you've suggested might be worth recommending if the article goes further (to A-Class or FA). EyeSerenetalk 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was coming here to ask if you could check back in on the article, but it looks like you already have. ;) A thought for future reviews is that it is nice for a reviewer to work with the author; not doing the work in the article yourself, but responding to replies on the review soon after you see them. That way we can have constructive discussion on why I think you are wrong and why you think I am wrong. ;)
Anyway, looking at your draft, I really like it outside of the move of the "Super Yamato" note into the prose—it seems out of place. I thought that the sections would be too small, but your version proved me wrong! Thanks for all of you help, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ranger Steve. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed Talk • Say no to drama 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

45th Infantry Division GA Review

I have addressed your concerns on this review. —Ed!(talk) 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne VCs

Hey there. Just wanted to pop in and say thanks for the citation to the Baskeyfield article; once I get Max Arthur's book in a few days I intend to have a crack at getting his article to at least GA, and then the other four airborne VCs won during WWII. You also deserve this for all your airborne-related work:

 The Airborne Warfare Barnstar 
For all your excellent airborne warfare-related work, particularly the Battle of Arnhem article. Skinny87 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cain

Have you finished editing the temp page? If not, can you tell me when you have then I will move it over to Robert Cain. I have to delete it to move it over and I didn't want to destroy any edits you have made in an edit conflict. Thanks, Woody (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted, edit away. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

...and thank you for your sterling work ;) Look forward to seeing you around on your return. EyeSerenetalk 07:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avebury

Hi, I noticed from your user page that you've been involved in editing the above article and the associated articles relating to the World Heritage Site. I'm currently trying to improve the Avebury article, although further improvements may have to wait a couple of weeks as I don't have the necessary sources at the moment. Since you're familiar with the articles, I was wondering if you have any of the print sources and would be willing to help bring the Avebury article up to scratch? As an aside, I'm surprised to see that Vespasian's Camp is part of the WHS as it's an Iron Age site rather than Neolithic as Avebury, Stone Henge, and West Kennet Avenue are. It's good to see a hill fort protected as a WHS, but it does seem a bit incongruous in this case. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the long term (and I do mean long as my time for editing is limited during the week) I intend to get Avebury onto the front page. My plan is to go through Avebury by Gillings and Pollard (2004), expanding the article, and then updating it with the 2008 book by the same authors on the latest excavations. It will probably mean that I'll spend time re-covering ground, but hopefully that should ensure the article's comprehensive. From there, I'll probably dip into other sources to see what other information and theories there is that Gillings and Pollard don't cover. Hoare would be worth mentioning in the Avebury article for some context.
That reminds me, I need to revisit the Danebury article as there's a lot more that can be said about the site (and I'd like to see another ancient monument on the front page if possible). It could also do with a bit more context. I hope with the Maiden Castle article that readers like it as the reason I wanted to see it on the front page is because I found the subject interesting. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really is one of the more bizarre theories I've seen, canals of all things! Pollard's views are probably reflected in the books he's written with Gillings. I decided to target Avebury rather than Stonehenge as its article was significantly less developed. Also, it's not as high-profile as Stonehenge and I thought that the fringe theories would be a bit easier to deal with. Plus, I was aware of the recent excavations and thought that the sources would be easier to handle than Stonehenge. The Neolithic isn't a subject I know a lot about, so I'm pretty much flying blind with the Avebury article. I'd love to see Stonehenge on the mainpage too, I image that would be a very popular article. In a discussion on Avebury's talk page, I found out that English Heritage doesn't even consider Stonehenge to be a true henge! Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition of Arnhem bridge

Nice to see you finally get that in as the Arnhem expert Steve. Nice to see you said thank you for me bringing it up :) To think that I, a rampant vandal, blocked daily by so many respected administrators actually beat you to the realisation that someone created an valid account just so he/she can add their bit of misinformed and unreferenced opinion :) And I, a vandal just add referenced and relevant information to article after article to have it all deleted :) Yes, life is tough at Wikipedia coal mine :)

Did you like me doing a bit of identification work on the cast and actual roles of characters in Abridge too far (film)? I had better save that offline in case Nicky deletes it all. Or maybe Buckshot will accuse me of using the Soviet Encyclopaedia and it all being Soviet propaganda, etc. :)

One thing I'm stuck at is who the RAF briefing officer was in real life. --124.183.166.10 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been aware of the error before, or I'd have corrected it sooner. I don't think Spark is to blame either as he merely changed some awkward wording but not the meaning of the sentence. I wasn't actually aware you'd brought it up either - I don't see it anywhere on the talk page and as I said that wasn't why I changed it. I merely looked at an edit and realised the whole thing was wrong anyway.
The expansion of A Bridge Too Far is long overdue, although there are some cast/role comparisons that would probably fall foul of OR if the article ever went to GA. I think I once worked out who the RAF officer was meant to be in real life, a composite of a few people I believe. I'll see if I can add it when I get back to my books. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen to dash

May I ask why you undid my hyphen-to-dash-correction in Battle of Arnhem? --Law Lord (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

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

Waddy

Hey there! Saw you putting together a biography for Waddy of 156th Battalion. I've got some stuff on him from my collection, if you'd like me to add it in, but I didn't want to barge in and add it immediately, as it's your sandbox! Skinny87 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if you'd be interested, but a (very) long term plan of mine is to put together a 'British airborne operations during the Second World War' Good Topic. I've got the navbox for the topic here with all the articles I can think of in it. It would be narrowed down to just those operations conducted by proper airborne troops - so no SAS, for example, or SOE stuff. I'm not sure about the Chindits, with Operation Thursday in there. I've almost finished the North African missions in my sandbox and will get that to GA shortly, but Market-Garden will be the sticking point, as I don't think that's even possible to finish, if I'm honest. So the question would be - can we just have Arnhem as it was the main British airborne attempt? Just there for you to consider; I'm tackling the Glider Pilot Regiment in my sandbox seperately at the moment, but I might have a go at finishing Ladbrooke, which I started a little while ago. Anyway, sorry for the long ramble, Skinny87 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that! It only took eight months and a near nervous break down, lol. Skinny87 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happened to see your posts over on Skinny's page, Waddy will definitely need disambiguating since great minds are thinking almost alike - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morotai_Mutiny&diff=315908081&oldid=308886822 by User:Ian Rose. I've pre-emptively dabbed taht one to John Waddy (RAAF officer), the most commonly used for for your chap would be John Waddy (British Army officer). David Underdown (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, In reckon this bloke would be better at John Lloyd Waddy, just so you know. David Underdown (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Right, I've added almost everything I can to the sandbox. However, I have some other mentions of Waddy in a biography of Urquhart and in Harclerode's more general history of airborne warfare. However, they both seem to have him as part of 3rd Parachute Battalion during the fighting in Arnhem, which I don't understand. The same company, B, just in 3rd Battalion now. Do you have any ideas for that? Skinny87 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, wait. There was another Major Waddy, commanding B Company 3rd Battalion, who was killed in Arnhem. I'll clear that up in the sandbox. Skinny87 (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote's for the chappie we're doing at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Ian Rose#Waddy, if you're prepared to hold off moving you guy into mainspace until Ian's had chance to put something together on the Aussie, there might be quite a fun double or even triple DYK to be put together. David Underdown (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od)I think a round of congratulations, RS. Damn fine article we've put together there, and will get to at least B (and maybe GA?) whenever it gets put into userspace. I enjoyed working with you, hopefully we can do this more often. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let me check all the Thompson stuff out; I thought it was all him, because a lot of it is quoted verbatim by Thompson, and I doubt the other Waddy had time to do that, given that he was killed. Still, he and his ilk like Norton and St George Saunders sometimes like to have their info splashed about a bit and don't always use full names. Skinny87 (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

  • Thompson, pp. 207-208: "B Company of 156 Battalion, commanded by Major Waddy, would leave all their heavy equipment on the DZ and in light order double for the bridge, to meet up with the glider party." Then there's the Wooden Cross or Victoria Cross quote attributed to one Major Powell. Now, it doesn't name Waddy's first name, but that seems to match up with what you've added of Waddy so far.
  • Thompson, pp. 228-229: I've cited this from a verbatim section of text attributed (again, damn you Thompson) to 'Major Waddy' who states that his aircraft was hit by flak but made it to the dropzone; a plane going past was hit and went down, wings burning. Same for the radioman getting hit as he left the aircraft. I'm tending towards it being our Waddy, as again it's a verbatim bit of text although of course it isn't cited. The literal quote from the verbatim text is, in part: "Black puffs of bursting flak shells dotted the sky around us. We passed right over a flak gun, I could see the faces of the German gunners staring up...A Dakota ablaze from wing-tip to wing-tip passed under our aircraft and crashed in flames. We were hit by some flak...At last the green light came on..."
I'm not sure anything else could be contentious; the other Thompson quotes are either Market Garden facts, or about Waddy assaulting the anti-aircraft gun and being wounded by the sniper, which is mostly from yet another verbatim section of text. This also agrees with what Harclerode writes about the assault, although he says the AA gun was actually a flakpanzer halftrack.
I'm guessing the only really contentious bit is the bit about assaulting the bridge? I honestly don't know what to say about that, but I guess Thompson could be wrong. As you seem to know more about it than I do (Market Garden always confuses the hell out of me for some reason) perhaps you should take it out and replace it with whatever can be found from Middlebrook etc. Skinny87 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, remove whatever Thompson stuff you need. I'm beginning to suspect I shouldn't use Thompson much anymore. That's the problem you see - too many crappy populist books and no real academic analysis. It's rather annoying. Skinny87 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digby Tatham-Warter

I've probably spelt the good Major's name incorrectly, lol. Anyway, yes, I'd love to, as I've nearly finished my own little airborne side-project I started yesterday: User:Skinny87/sandbox2. I'll gather my sources together and see what I can come up with as soon as I finish in my sandbox. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the same Dover. His book is very useful for biographical details of the big airborne generals and brigadiers like Gale, Urquhart etc, but it's the second-most boring airborne book I've ever read, and the third-most boring WWII book. There's not a bad word said about any of the senior officers in there - they're all wonderful chaps, brave and courageous, and of course he knew them all intimately don'tcha know. Even Browning comes off as just unlucky in Market Garden! Skinny87 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got much on the good Major, I'm afraid. Might be able to contribute some stuff on Arnhem and Pegasus, but that's about it. Might be a bit more on Dobie, but not a significant amount. They didn't get to a high enough rank to get a lot of stuff done about them, it seems. I think I'm going to do some more Brigadiers - probably Nigel Poett and then maybe Gerald Lathbury or John Hackett. With Flavell done I think I've run out of airborne officer redlinks, although Hugh Kindersley's article is a shambles. But, then again, he didn't command anything in combat, I don't think. You got any more redlinked officers or airborne personnel you can think of that might be notable? Skinny87 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, shows you I need to look. Brigadiers Ernest Down (1st Para Brigade) and Philip Hick (1st Airlanding Brigade) need to be written. I've started Down's biography in my sandbox, see how that goes. Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably will be me, lol, because it would seem there's bugger all on Down. Poor fella, I remember trying to get together a bio on him about a year ago, and although he was temp commander of 1st ABN after Hopkinson was killed, he then got shunted off to raise a couple of Indian ABN Divisions that never got off the ground. Paradata's got nothing on him, which is a shame, and their stuff on Hicks consists of a few photos only. Incidentally, I'm having doubts about pegasuscarchives as a source. Looking over the Hick bio it has, it's completely uncited, and also seems to cast some uncited aspersions on him (muttering about Arnhem being another Dunkirk, for example, and being a poor commander). I'd be careful with PA and always check the info first, if you can. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thought you'd be sensible :) I'm going to put Hicks and Down on ice for the moment; Hicks has a better chance of getting written, but I need to find their obituaries in the Times and Telegraph. Downs can be seen on the Times Online Archive, but you need to pay; as such, I'm gonna try and find out how to access it through my local library. As such, I'm gonna flesh out Poett's article, even though it means using his biography, which is so dry you could use it in a martini... Skinny87 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Favor

Done :) EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double DYK

Hi there Steve - just to update, it'll probably come down to the wire but I think I should get John Lloyd Waddy ready to go live by the 30th, so we can execute Operation Double Whammy (or Double Waddy) without you waiting much longer...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M22 Locust

Hey Steve. Your copy-editing on the Locust is really good - you seem to have a knack for it. Perhaps you should put yourself on the list for MILHIST Copy-Editors or a more general project? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steve. I've answered all your questions on the A-Class Review, just to let you know. On the question of the obselete thing, I hope that it reads: Light Tanks obsolete -> Thus Tetrarch obsolete as it is a light tank - -> War Office therefore gives tanks to airborne to be sent via glider. It seems clear to me, but obviously I wrote the article so am probably too close. Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. I might have to stop writing airborne articles - ParaData is starting to copy all my stuff onto their website without attribution! Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also, Roger Davies said it would be good to write an article about writing airborne warfare articles, for the MILHIST Academy Drive. I've got some stuff to write about sourcing, but would you be interested as well? You're the only other editor I've found interested in airborne stuff. Skinny87 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was only one piece they forgot to attribute to my wiki article on George F. Hopkinson. I emailed the assistant curator and he did so, very nice about it. Anyway, here's the content drive. I know it's a tad specialist, as Roger said, but you never know. It might help someone else further on down the line. I'll start writing something in a sandbox in the next day or two. Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And started off here with a general introduction and a beginning to source analysis. Do you have a library of airborne books, by the way? I found it helpful to set one up as a subpage, if only for adding books into new articles I'm writing/expanding. Skinny87 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, duder, edit away. I'll pop in and out with source ideas/opinions when I think of something. Skinny87 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arnhem tweak

Steve, I saw your tweak, and as it happens I was reading a paper on XIX the other week. It seems that SHEAF, i.e. Eisenhower, did not ignore the information about German armour in the Venlo-Arnhem area, and Eisenhower sent two officers to Montgomery to try and dissuade him from going ahead with the operation, but he would not be budged. Its in Shwedo's XIX TAC and ULTRA. p.118.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, wow. If that's actually true, then...I don't know what to say. I knew Monty was an [unmentionable] for ignoring the armour, and Browning for doing the same and dismissing Brian Urquhart. But if Monty also ignored two officers from Eisenhower, then that's incredible. Skinny87 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. Ryan details the events in his book (minus the ULTRA bit). Apparently Walter Bedell Smith brought the matter to Ike's attention, who refused to make Monty's decisions for him but sent Smith to tell Monty what he'd found. Monty apprently "ridiculed the idea". Haven't read this report yet (on Koakhtzivgag's talk page), so can't comment on it yet.... Ranger Steve (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnhem to GA

Hsve you thought about getting Battle of Arnhem to GA? Looking over it, you've done a fine job, and I doubt it would take much to get it there. Might need to rewrite the lead to highlight that there was some criticism, but apart from that it should pass quite easily. What do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks, It seems like Otway has details on all of those, pp. 206-214. But cheers for the reminder, I'll be adding those in when I write the main article. So, what's next for you in terms of article writing? Skinny87 (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can self-assess upto B-Class, it's only GA and above that you can't; I'm out all day tonight, so if you want to do it, feel free. Otherwise I'll try and remember to do it tomorrow. Skinny87 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestonehenge

Thanks for improving the article. I've put the article in the queue for the Did You Know? feature, so and I'd be happy for you to make any further improvements you can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so after I've expanded the article from this to this you're happy for me to continue expanding it for the benefit of your own self nomination. Wow, I bet you are. Thanks for the all clear to do that for you.... Ranger Steve (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...what? I self-nominate all the time - hasn't made me blind to other people's contributions though. If you'd like a credit, I'm sure it can be arranged. It's really not something that I have a problem over. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big problem for me either, and I'm not especially looking for credit (although it's nice to be recognised). I'm sure you haven't intentionally done this either but it's the fact that it wouldn't have been eligible for DYK before I substantially reworked it, and as soon as I had, you nominated (crediting yourself). Probably not intentional, but there you go. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it have been eligible for DYK before you reworked it? I was planning to do that anyway - what you did was to make it a bigger and better article, so I decided to put it up. I'm really not that competitive about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was too short. That isn't why I expanded, but it's pretty obvious. Look, I'm not angry about this or anything, but you might like to consider the order in which you've done things here. You started a good article, but didn't put it up for DYK for 3 days, after which time someone else had made it eligible. Then you post thanks on my talkpage and encourage me to continue because you've nominated it (but only crediting yourself). If it had been nominated when you started it (and yes, even if it had been too short) no-one would care, even if other people made it long enough later on allowing it to pass. But when you let others expand it sufficiently first, and only then nominate....? Ranger Steve (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't think it was too short (3,896 bytes when I last edited it), but I'm not quibbling about that. The fact remains that I started the article, which is what I said at DYK, and I would have got round to expanding it. Instead, you did it, which I was pleased about, because it made a better article, not because it made me think "great, I can go for a DYK credit now". That thought, frankly, never occurred to me. But, incidentally, I've been involved in plenty of other DYKs where someone else has started an article and I've expanded it, without getting credit - sometimes that's life, and I'm not too bothered about it. Let's just concentrate on content rather than making assumptions about motives, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK 1500 byte length is based on prose, not total article bytes. Anyway like I said, I don't have a problem, and I'm sure you haven't done anything intentionally here. I'd also be happy to see it on DYK, but if I were you I wouldn't assume things are fine just because it's happened to you in the past. I've also worked on articles that have gone onto the main page, but were nominated before I got involved. I haven't made any assumptions about your motives, but if you want to make sure people don't, you might want to rethink what you paste onto peoples talk pages when you make a nomination. C'mon read it back to yourself - "I've nominated, so feel free to make it better" Ranger Steve (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've crossed out the "so" - I think you made assumptions about what I actually meant by that, but I accept that I could have made a better choice of words had I thought about it more. Let's leave it at that, OK? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to, like I said I'm not hissy about this at all and I could clearly see what had happened, but I'm glad you can see why I found your original post a bit bemusing. Best of luck with the DYK, I'm gonna be expanding the article off and on as more becomes available in reliable sources. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Waddy (British Army officer)

Updated DYK query On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Waddy (British Army officer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Arnhem at al

Hey duder. Baynes says 400 under Major Gough, but if the sources conflict, you could say 'several hundred' or add a note with the differing numbers. If you want to review Doomsday then I'd be very greatful; I'd review Arnhem but I don't feel like I know the subject enough. Market Garden is the one area I always get confused around, and especially Arnhem and the stuff that happened around there. Hope that's okay, cheers. Skinny87 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theirs is the Glory

Fixed - if there's an existing page, it does indeed mean deleting the current page to make space (and copy/paste moves are frowned upon because, as you noted, they leave behind the history which is needed for copyright reasons). See WP:MOVE for more details :) EyeSerenetalk 07:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk-page for Theirs is the Glory should be right. To be honest, I didn't look at the other one - if you want to leave something there, by all means :) EyeSerenetalk 08:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine. EyeSerenetalk 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I don't see why this couldn't be a GA at the very least. The sources seem to exist in detail (Googlr Books would seme to indicate that there are a number of film books that mention it in some detail), we just need to corrall them up. I might see if JSTOR has anything before my access comes to an end. Skinny87 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to ask you...

I've been meaning to ask you for ages, as I was frankly stunned to see another airborne warfare editor, although of course you're free not to! What interested you in airborne warfare, and Arnhem in particular? For me it was being raised on a diet of Commando Comics and war films, as well as having an uncle who died during Operation Doomsday. Skinny87 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arnhem

Hi, just letting you know I've passed the GA Review for Battle of Arnhem. Congrats :-) DB 103245 talk 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob

Yeah, of course! I thought you'd leave me a message when you'd finished tidying up the later life section, that's all, sorry. I've got a flu jab at 15:30, but should have time tonight to do it, or start it at the very least. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll review it in a little bit. Skinny87 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hells yeah, I watched it! Shame it was a repeat, but otherwise it was great; although it was kinda irritating they called it a 'spigot mortar' and didn't refer to it as the Blacker Bombard. Nice to see a replica Ironside as well, didn't know any of those had been made. Take your time with Bob, no rush. Skinny87 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baskeyfield

Hey Steve. Good luck on writing Baskeyfield's article; I didn't find much on him in my books, although this BBC site: [2] might be quite useful, RS and all that. I'd love to help out after I finish the Operation Dragoon airborne landings but a new user has just systematically demolished Operation Tonga on the talkpage, so I've got to rewrite the whole damned article in a little while. Still, if I can help anywhere let me know - do you have a link to my library of books? It's on my userpage, and although I'm away until saturday night, let me know after that and I'll bring in the (literary) firepower. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's no rush with the 11th airborne thing, and it's kind of you to take a look at it. Glad you found Harclerode, although I would council caution when using him; he's very good at narrative and battles, but there's absolutely no critical analysis from him at all in that book. Still, as a reference guide it can't go much wrong. His other books are good as well; when I can spare £25, I'm going to get his history of 6th Para Division to write the divisional article. Skinny87 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baskeyfield is looking good, duder. Nice to see him get some recognition and work at last. This month's Britain at War has an article on the 1st Airborne Reconnaissance's attempt to get to the Arnhem bridge, only to get ambushed, if that's of any interest to you. More importantly, next month will have an article on Pegasus I, which I'll be sure to get to help you out; it will only be a general article, a few pages, but it will have citations, and they always mention books I wouldn't have known existed. Skinny87 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the beer! Yeah, the new guy could have been a little nicer, but ultimately he does have a point; I wrote that article about 18 months ago, at least, and I didn't have the sources I do now, or the wiki know-how. But I also think you're right; it doesn't need a rewrite so much as...augmentation with sources on what the Germans were doing. I want it at least at GA, because its part of the larger Battle of Normandy Featured Topic drive. Any luck on finding more on Baskeyfield? None of my books have anything more, I'm afraid; if you will find more, it'll be in the rarer, often self-published books released by veterans or the airborne museum in Oosterbeek. If Baskeyfield is as far as he can go, who's next on the list? Skinny87 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of chat pages? BBC is usually an RS anyway. As for Lord, don't despair! My (local) library has been fortunate enough to be graced with a copy of The RAF at Arnhem: Gliders and Aircraft Resupply missions or something like that. I think it has something on Lord, I'll take a look tomorrow. And let me consult the old library (mine, this time), especially Harclerode's Arnhem book. Otherwise, I'd look for obituaries as an RAF VC holder, and any histories of the RAF at Arnhem. Skinny87 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do - what division was he in? Skinny87 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note

Nice article, you've done an excellent job with it. I agree the review was sparse and not really up to GA 'best practice' standards, but probably still sound for all that. The article is certainly GA standard, and bar a few minor nitpicks I think I'd have passed it. If I was reviewing at PR/ACR, I'd note the following: instances of inconsistent British/American English spelling (favored/favoured); the dashes may need looking at per WP:MOSDASH; it could use checking for encyclopedic tone ("famous" in the lede); the "In popular culture" section may cause difficulties (some editors are very anti these sections me included!); possibly the external links could do with trimming (mainly per WP:ELNO no. 1); some reviewers may object to page ranges given in the refs (it's borderline whether or not these are slightly overused); png, or better, svg, is recommended for maps, and a key is usually best omitted (so they can be used in other language versions). None of these would prevent a GA pass though, and they really are mostly nitpicks :) Hope this helps, and congratulations once again on a damn fine article! EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and all the best with the article's further development. EyeSerenetalk 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grayburn pic

Hey Ranger. Nice finding the pic, but to ensure it isn't deleted or mass-tagged, you'll need to add a source for it (even if it's just a website) and the date it was taken, not when you uploaded it. Just an fyi. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHS infoboxes

Hi Steve. I noticed you undid my changes there. I made three changes; can you describe your rationale for undoing each one please?

Thanks, and sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,
The main reason for the revert was to keep the infoboxes in line with all of the other WHS infoboxes in Britain. If you have a look through them you'll find they (mostly) conform to the same style I reverted to. Whether it's right or not is, I guess another matter. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, as I said in the edit summary, the official designation used by UNESCO (see here), and therefore the logical title to use in that field. I personally think linking to a country, especially in an infobox, is justified in this case. WHS exist all over the world, and although we may be familiar with this country, a great many English speakers won't be aware of the exact definition UNESCO is using. A link clarifies that for them. I would certainly hope to see a foreign countries name wikilinked in a WHS box (as indeed they all are, and in the examples at Template:Infobox World Heritage Site). As for Flagcruft, I didn't know about that (you didn't mention it in the edit summary), so fair enough. But given that 90% of British WHS infoboxes appear to use it, this might be something worth raising on a more general level first.
Sorry if I caused offence by reverting you, t'was not my intent. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken! I'll take it to template talk or project talk, or both. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of John Baskeyfield

Hello! Your submission of John Baskeyfield at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queripel

Good news, Steve! I'm currently volunteering at the Eastbourne Redoubt, an old Napoleonic fort turned into a museum for several regiments. Why is this good news? Well, one of the regiments is the Royal Sussex Regiment, to whom Captain Queripel belonged, and in this museum are numerous documents pertaining to him, as well as his ceremonial sword and, I think, cap. The assistant curator has offered to help me find archival stuff about the Captain, and I hope to be able to photograph the sword and cap and upload the photographs to wikipedia quite soon. I'll see what else I can find out about Queripel at the same time. Skinny87 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Baskeyfield

Updated DYK query On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Baskeyfield, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 13:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Lonsdale

Looks like we're doing a good job for the Lieutenant-Colonel! The picture Owen spencer added to the article will be deleted on the 24th unless its copyright status is confirmed, and the website it's sourced to crashed my internet when I clicked on it. There's a very similar picture on Pegasus Archives, but although I suspect it would be PD-Gov as it was taken by Army personnel, there are no details of who took it; it's the same for any other photos I can find of him. Paradata has nothing, and neither does the IWM online photograph collection. I'm thinking of removing the picture for now - what do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of War is an excellent book for detail, although there's absolutely no analysis at all. I'd heartily recommend Thompson's history of the Parachute Regiment; it's quite short, but full of first-hand accounts and quotations and cheap. I'd never have got Hill to GA without him! Skinny87 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know when I'll get around to it, but his Arnhem section needs a sentence or two on what Market Garden was, and why Arnhem happened - what you did for Cain is excellent. If you can get to it first, that'd be great. Skinny87 (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, I think I've shot my bolt with my sources on Lonsdale. I've asked David Underdown if he can email me the Times obituary; if he can, I'll work with that and fill in the blanks. Otherwise I'm afraid it's down to your sources and whatever Owen has if he edits again. Skinny87 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reply to the latest message on my page - I'm more than happy that others have taken an interest and are expanding this article. As for the Times Ob. the text is:

"Times (UK)

Copyright © 1988 Times Newspapers Ltd

26 November 1988

Lt-Col Richard Lonsdale, Commander of heroic force at Arnhem;ObituaryLt-Colonel Richard Lonsdale, DSO and Bar, MC, who died on November 23 at the age of 74, was the commander of a small force which fought an heroic rearguard action at Arnhem that enabled survivors of the Airborne Division to escape across the Rhine. His exploits earned him a second DSO.

Richard Thomas Henry Lonsdale was educated at Eastbourne College. After enlisting as a private he was later offered a place at Sandhurst and in 1936 was commissioned in the Royal Leicestershire Regiment. He went to Jubbulpore with the Leicesters in 1937 and the following year in an operation in Waziristan won the MC for his successful part in recapturing a picket post.

Lonsdale transferred to the Parachute Regiment in 1942 and took part in the invasion of Sicily, where he was awarded his first DSO when he was second-in-command of the 2nd Battalion. High winds had scattered the invading parachutists, as a result of which Lonsdale and his men landed further forward than had been planned. He remained where he was and with his men fought off successive attacks until the Germans decided to withdraw.

He was best remembered for his part in the ill-fated Operation Market Garden at Arnhem. As reinforcements failed to get through, casualties mounted among the remnants of the force attempting to hold out. Lonsdale was detailed to assemble a small group to be deployed on the outskirts of the village of Oosterbeek, near a church about a hundred yards from the river.

It was made up of a cosmopolitan collection of men who had become separated from their own units in the confusion of the battle. Its object was to secure a perimeter through which survivors of the Airborne Division could be evacuated across the river. The group became known as ``Lonsdale's Force and for several days fought off determined German attacks on what became the last foothold across the bridge. When Lonsdale's Force eventually withdrew, Dickie Lonsdale himself was the last man to leave, swimming across the river with difficulty because of the wounds he had himself sustained.

Plans to commemorate the deeds of Lonsdale's Force with a memorial window in Oosterbeek church have been discussed but have not yet materialised.

Lonsdale went on to command the amalgamated 3rd and 11th Paras and also served in Palestine. He left the Parachute Regiment in 1946 and after a spell with the King's African Rifles in Uganda he went into the wine trade and spent several years in Africa. On his return to Britain he settled for a time in the Isle of Man but later moved to Bath.

INDEX REFERENCES ----

REGION: (United Kingdom(1UN38); Germany(1GE16); Europe(1EU83); Central Europe(1CE50); England(1EN10); Western Europe(1WE41))

Language: EN

OTHER INDEXING: (AFRICAN RIFLES; AIRBORNE DIVISION; EASTBOURNE COLLEGE; GERMANS; MC; PARACHUTE REGIMENT; ROYAL LEICESTERSHIRE REGIMENT)(Bar; Dickie Lonsdale; Henry Lonsdale; Lonsdale; Richard Lonsdale; Richard Thomas)

Word Count: 513

11/26/88 TIMESUK (No Page)"

11th

Its looking great so far Steve, thanks. But please, if its stressing you out, then leave it alone - I don't want to see you get burnt out as well as me. Skinny87 (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranger_Steve&oldid=326926352"