User talk:Roger Davies

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Digg Digg
Furl Furl
Reddit Reddit
Rojo Rojo
Add to OnlyWire
ARCHIVES: 123456789101112131415



If you post a message here, I'll usually respond here
(on this page) unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


Contents

Barnstar

Wow, you're really giving the 11th ABN a really thorough copy-edit Roger. I can't thank you enough, but hopefully this'll help:

The Working Man's Barnstar
To Roger, for all his tireless contributuons and help on 11th Airborne Division (United States) Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I completely rewrote that section as well, after someone complained about it in the last FAC. What seems to be the main problem with it? Skinny87 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've have a look at it tonight when I get home from uni. What kind of link do you mean? Skinny87 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look, but I'm not sure? Did I write that in the article? Skinny87 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, as I know that was the case (especially for the Americans) so I'll try and find quote and add it in somewhere at the beginning of the section. Skinny87 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well yes there would be info on that, a fair bit of it I think. Should I try and rewrite the Knollwood section again with that info and the info on Allied airborne development? Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of barnstars, it might be appropriate to award the very first one of those shiny new ACW task force barnstars (when complete) to the user who spent so much time helping to render its final design, Grayghost01. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I endorse this as well.-- 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Roger, thanks so much for the help. I did what we discussed and expanded the 'Formation' section, and all that needs doing is the extra references I added. If you could look it over when you have time and tell me if you think it's ready? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry

I have to leave for a while. I do not know when I will be back. I am so sarry to ahve to do this Roger, but the losses...I just can not take the losses anymore. I need a long rest, so I must leave for now. Since I volenteered to help as a coordinator I serve notice that you may reassign my spot to some one else if you need to. My guilt over this is emense, I have let you and the milhist project down, but if you could find it in your heart to forgive me for leaving the coordinators when you need us the most I would be in your debt. I shall return, but I do not know when. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Done, closed and archived. Incidentally, "The Bugle" came out on top, so you get one of these.

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For coming up with the new name for the Military History Project Monthly Newsletter, which shall hereby be known as The Bugle, I am pleased to award you this barnstar. Cam (Chat) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jon already handed out the writers barnstar, and I've given theed the wikichevrons. Now I'm hitting the sack. G'night. Cam (Chat) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - November 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your question

The new year should be OK - I think the FA-Team project only runs until Christmas anyway, Sweeney Todd will have had its FAC by then, and the on/off GA working group reform proposals I seem to have ended up facilitating and just yesterday starting resurrecting will be done with... one way or another :P If you think I can be useful, I'd be happy to help out then. Lol, food processors are important too! EyeSerenetalk 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps I should add that, if Tom's back by then and ready to step back into his coordinator shoes, I have no problem with the position being filled ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment

Thanks for your compliment about Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 on 13 Sept on my talk page. I've been off line for a while becuase my husband has been ill, so I've only just seen it. The Falklands bit took a bit of tracking down! Viv Hamilton (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

11th ABN

Hey Roger. I guess you're sick to death of this, but I'm thinking of finally taking it to FAC in a day or so. Do you think it's finally ready? Skinny87 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Roger, and thanks for all the help you've given me. I'll take it over from here, ask EyeSerene to give it a look over. Skinny87 (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance

I was reading this and noticed that a WW1 article I know of (Shrine of Remembrance) is not in Category:FA-Class World War I articles. Should it be? I was going to ask Tom, but given what has happened I thought it best to ask elsewhere and leave him in peace for the time being. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Sandy fixed this. I could have done that myself, as she said. :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Good ole Sandy :) I was just looking at it. -- talk 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, Carcharoth has popped my watchlist about two dozen times tonight just when I'm trying to figure out why that blooming ad banner came back and I can't get rid of it ... grrrrr ... not happy with that banner ... the gadgets button is gone and the monobook.css code isn't working, and I've got Carcharoth setting off my watchlist while that blipping red banner is asking me to give more blood to Wiki :-) Sandy (Talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy! Yeah, that bloody red banner is coming and going here too :) -- talk 06:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I noticed in your 'What's expected' guide that you gave the caveat that coordinators who also happen to be admins do not become involved in admin duties. Obviously the usual rules about abusing the tools would apply, but are coordinator/admins no longer seen as sufficiently neutral or uninvolved to make appropriate judgments on any MilHist-related article? I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with it, if that's the case (and I'm already involved as an admin in some fairly contentious MilHist-related areas). Apologies if I've misunderstood... EyeSerenetalk 09:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, that does help. I fully appreciate the need to separate the roles of coordinator and admin, but since in entrusting the tools the community has the expectation that admins are capable of exercising judgement about when to employ then, I did wonder if the notice was being over-cautious, or if there was some unwritten tradition in MilHist that coordinators are not expected to put on their admin hats while in the role. Just to reassure you that I've no intention of blocking half the membership, but via ANI I seem to have become involved in helping to police the WP:ARBMAC decision, and as you can imagine this impinges on many areas round the project, including MilHist. It might be best if I stay away as much as possible from Balkans-related areas of MilHist in the light of that, although it may be difficult given the scope. I've got a while to think about it though, so no big deal yet, and if you've got any thoughts I'd be pleased to hear them ;) EyeSerenetalk 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like the best way to go... and I agree that polarisation is undesirable if it goes too far; it's only a short step from there to groups set up to ensure articles have the 'right' political or nationalist spin. I suppose it relates to my earlier question too - under some of the arbcom decisions I've seen, the proverbial 'uninvolved admin' has incredibly wide-ranging discretionary powers, which in my view makes it all the more important that these are exercised thoughtfully and with due care, transparency, and process. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, other than that I've started pontificating, which is usually a good sign I should go and find something productive to do... One thing I did mean to mention earlier but forgot - I noticed your comment to Cam re adminship, and if you're intending to nominate him at some point in the future, I'd be very grateful if you could let me know; I'd be delighted to provide a co-nom. EyeSerenetalk 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost01?

Hey Roger. Guess what - I'm not here about the 11th Airborne Division! Anyway, looking up Grayghost01 to see if he was still trying to change all of our military ranks, I stumbled upon this, which concerns me a bit. Combined with his comments on military ranks and the ACW taskforce talkpage, Grayghost seems to have a considerable chip on his shoulder. Is this something to be concerned about? I mean, it won't really affect me as I don't edit in that area, but for you and others I'm concerned. That page and his comments don't make him seem to be most flexible editor in the world, especially about the CSA. Just wondering what you thought, Skinny87 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on a draft but my weekend has been disrupted by intensive partying. I'll post something today or tomorrow on the main Milhist talk page. It will be not be specific to any particular period or region. -- talk 07:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Roger, that sounds like a great idea. Party on! Skinny87 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Didn't know if you were aware of this FAC. Please take a look, since you helped write Hamlet. I'm about to lose my mind. I really can't stand high-profile FACs. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your pain. To be honest, Smatprt is one of the reasons why I drifted away from the article.-- talk 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

Hi Roger. I just wanted to inquire, is it just me or did the October edition of the Milhist newsletter not come out? I just havn't recieved it yet, and was just a little puzzled/curious, lol. Hope all is well on your end, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's with CBrown1023 awaiting despatch. The problem is he's busy with fundraising so it might be a day or two. -- talk 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Sorry for being a bit of a nag. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Train Raid of 1861

It seems like this RFC has gotten off to a slow start. It seems like the next step in the Dispute Resolution process would be Informal Mediation. Did you just volunteer to serve in that role?

This was also posted on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory, yes, though I might not be seen as impartial by other editors. -- talk 12:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have composed a summary of my feelings on this matter on the article's discussion page in the section you originated. If you or someone else wants to start mediating this might be the place to start. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is time, in my opinion, to start eliminating non-encyclopedic material from the article. Please see Talk:Great Train Raid of 1861#Search for Consensus -- Elimination of Section “ List of historians believing the locomotive raid true”. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful RS links

Have you seen Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Logistics#Current reference sources? It really is fantastic work, though there isn't a way to go to articles and remove some of the "bad" links. I think it highlights some of the regular gripes at ACR/FAC about reliable sourcing particularly well. As with the IP who made it, I am not sure where it should go or where it should be linked to / from. Any ideas? Hope all is well. Best regards. Woody (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's good work BUT, as you say, it has a number of problems. Without linking to the articles it is sourced from, it cannot be easily expanded. Without linking to task forces/subjects referenced, it is just a indiscriminate collection of links. So it is really just raw data that will take considerable work to get into a useful form. Perhaps the best home would be a logistics sub-page, probably hatnoted from sources, called something like "popular Milhist external links". What you do think? -- talk 12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as a simple measure of the state of play, it is good. As an editorial tool, not so much. I don't know where to put it really, a sub-page is a good idea. Perhaps /Logistics/Sourcing overview or /Sources situation.? As an aside, I think I will stay out of the ACR discussion for the time being, my opinion on the matter has been made clear I feel. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by  () at 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

Remnants of Mrg

What do you reckon we should do about this one - Front mobile group? Buckshot06(prof) 11:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine :) The term is commonly used for Soviet operations (as Google reveals) though the article seems to have gold-plated it a bit. Recent experience shows that article such as these don't attract consensus to delete at AfD. Best is probably to quietly ignore it? -- talk 05:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It is what it is, so there's no problem with leaving it as is. He has always done okay describing Soviet military terminology. It could actually become much more than a stub if someone knowledgeable wanted to work on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Black Book list with Eric Blair?

I have a copy of the list, and I didn't see the name Eric Blair or George Orwell. Does the author of the article know something I don't? My copy has what looks like the original list in it, and I don't see his name.Openskye (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Best is to add a {{fact}} tag after Blair's name on The Black Book article. This asks for an inline citation to be added to verify the source of the information. Taking this a step further, I see that none of the names have inline citations so this could be part of a larger clean up. Perhaps, if you have the main source, and some available time, you might like to take this on as a little project? It's only a matter of adding <ref>[source name], p. xx</ref> after each of the names on the list. -- talk 05:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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) 00:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominating Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) for GA Review

Hi !

Just letting you know that I am nominating the article for a GA Review. I have requested Dapi89 to spare the time for the review. Thanks for all the help you can offer. Perseus71 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I do understand that you have other engagements. It was simply an FYI, that I am taking to GA. Perseus71 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re task force adoption

What would you like me to do about your list? I can sign up to a few now, bearing in mind that I probably won't be very active for a while, or I could perhaps take a selection on in the new year from the other coordinators. I'm easy either way ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Entirely up to you though you might up end with a very mixed bag in the New Year :) -- talk 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Test run with AWB

Hi - I decided to test AWB and project tagging on Category:French Navy officers. Out of about 170 articles in that category, 56 of them did not have the milhist tag. Since the category would seem to require |Maritime=yes |French=yes |Biography=yes and the B-class checklist. I laid those task forces down along with |auto=yes. |Class= was left blank because I'm only seeing the talk page. I saw about 80 articles in "needing class rating" but if you could have a look at them and spot any errors in my tagging I would appreciate it. This might be something I can do when I'm bored but not often enough to overwhelm people with articles to assess for class. --Brad (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I made a run through Category:Army Medal of Honor recipients and found about 300 articles this time around. The |auto=yes option doesn't seem to be working and I'll find out why before doing any further scans. If you're interested you can go to Brad101AWB (talk · contribs) and see what I'm up to. Perhaps the best thing to do would be putting in a request there for categories you think need scanning. I'll work on them eventually. --Brad (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit on Flickr!

Ok, my India pictures are slowly going up on Flickr, but as I do not want to share all of them with the world, I have restricted their access to "family and friends". Do you have a Flickr account that I could share them with? Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Thanks for the barnstar! That was unexpected (and also appreciated a lot).

Chamal talk 14:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference Problems

Hey Roger. Sorry to bother you, but as I've been working on Tetrarch (tank), someone has combined some of my refs together. Very kind of them, but it wasn't until I looked closer that I noticed they've put about twenty of them together, many different pages, under an odd reference of between pages 9 and 14, ie instead of combining all the Page 10s and Page 14s, they've combined all the references between pages 9 and 14 into one combined ref. I've left the user a message, but I think they're kinda new; and to be honest I've no idea how to I could undo the refs myself. Can you help, or point me in the right direction of how to get my citations back? I can't remember what page belongs to which citation! Skinny87 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Thanks for the quick response, but I've fixed all of the references by comparing revisions. Sorry to bother you again! Skinny87 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. Welcome

Thank you. :)

I'm somewhat confused, though, is this WikiProject focused on military tactics (i.e. type of weaponry used, science behind guns/gunpowder, etc.), or is it more to do with territorial expansion and warfare in general? Master&Expert (Talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Some help

I'd be glad to accept your help. arkiolinistDrop me a line 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. What's first task for bringing it up to A class? arkiolinistDrop me a line 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Always there when needed, thanks :-) Sandy (Talk) 04:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

T-54/55 supporting materials

Hi. Thanks for assessing T-54/55. What supporting materials are needed (checkpoint 5)? Michael Z. 2008-11-18 15:53 z

Battle of Marion A-class

Check the talk page. I've made a short list from suggestions of other users. Tell me if you have anything else. In the meantime, I'll get to work on it. arkiolinistDrop me a line 21:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


Giant Panda

Mercedes Car
James Bond Guide
This site monitored by SitePinger.net