Wikipedia

User:Jim Sweeney/Archive 1

< User:Jim Sweeney

Knights Cross recipients edit

  The Original Barnstar
For your work on Knights cross recipients Waacstats (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have come across a number of these articles while sorting through Category:People stubs and they all seem well written stubs just one point, would these be better stubbed with {{Germany-mil-bio-stub}} and possibly {{WWII-bio-stub}} rather than just {{bio-stub}}? Waacstats (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pionier / Engineer edit

In Eberhard Heder article, if Pionier is German for Engineer, should we write at least once:

  • joined the SS Pionier (Engineer) Battalion.

rather than just

  • joined the SS Pionier Battalion.

That way we can learn something. Tabletop (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Something for you edit

  The Content Review Medal of Merit  
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the fourth quarter of 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal. -MBK004 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust in Belarus edit

Hi Jim Sweeney,

Yes, you're right. I was wrong when I reverted your edition, now it's in order. I'm sorry, --Baiji (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Knight's Cross recipients edit

I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your contribution to the list of Knight's Cross recipients. Great job! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Knight's Cross edit

I posted a question with the lead coordinator Roger Davies of the Military History Project. Maybe you want to help detailing the issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Späher Staffel edit

I don't know what a Spräher is but if you mean a Späher (German:scout) than I would think that this refers to a small scout/recon unit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:SS Divisions edit

Hi, I am not quit comfortable with the template as it is today. I suggest categorizing the Divisions according to armoured, infantry, mountain, Police and foreign. What do you think? I lack the necessary background to judge if this makes sense. I would appreciate in your input on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the change and can you review please? I might make the wrong association. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Done, please check if the alignment is correct. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
looks good. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
have a look at my talk page User:EnigmaMcmxc is suggesting a different naming scheme MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Another question on the template is in regards to the Panzergrenadier status of some of the units: 27th, 28th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 38th Grenadier divisions.
Grenadier units were essentially infantry whereas Panzergrenadier formations were motorised/mechansied (to an extent) infantry. Do we know weather or not the above formations where motorised/mechansied units? like for example the Wiking division?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Checked! Looks fine to me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Notability of Knight's Cross recipients edit

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping! MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know edit

You create a lot of good content on regular basis. Please consider nominating it at Template talk:Did you know, I concentrate on nominating articles by new editors who may not be aware of T:TDYK, and by now you should be aware of this project. Remember that a content nominated at T:TDYK appears on Wikipedia's front page and is regularly seen by millions of people, so it is a great way to make sure your work is seen. PS. You may also want to link your talk archives from your userpage, as it is your talk page gives a confusing impression that you are a new editor. PSS. You may also consider nominating your articles at WP:MILCON.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Soldier magazine edit

Hey, cheers for that mate, looks like a nice little article. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST Awards edit

Please do not vote on nominations for awards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards unless you are a coordinator. Thanks, -MBK004 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Egger edit

  On February 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Egger, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


| From Wikipedia's newest articles:

 

Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article

Congrats edit

Thanks! Looks like it was a close call initially. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Lüth edit

If you find the time have a look at the article and let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87 edit

Hi Jim,

I thought European articles were spelt in UK English? Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I may just as easily be be wrong! How does someone find this out? Dapi89 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the nod. Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 1 SS Infantry Brigade edit

  On February 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1 SS Infantry Brigade, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's newest articles:

 

Archive – Start a new article – Nominate an article

Elections edit

If you haven't yet done so, please give serious thought to standing in the upcoming coordinator elections. You'd be an asset :) – Roger Davies talk 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen it and it could be a good opportunity for you to learn to lengthen it :) – Roger Davies talk 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The coordinator election pages are now all set up. So if you change your mind, feel free to nominate yourself here. — Roger Davies talk 07:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Bravo Two Zero revert edit

Hello Jim Sweeney. Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the revert of my edits, they are now cited to the book they originated from. Thanks again. --Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election edit

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 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election edit

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 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

C-class vote edit

You're about half an hour early for the voting phase, though I won't revert, I thought I would make you aware of that. Your vote may or may not be reverted, but in general all voting happens after the start of the voting period, and we are still technically in the sign up period. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote edit

Great Opinion on C-Class I am with you on it also! I am glad to see that people are truly thinking about this subject. Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooption edit

I am glad that you have questions on the Cooption, what I believe it means by removing coordinators is that, when one of the coordinators has not been active in a long time, than the coordinators will come together and decide if that person is hurting the WikiProject because of his/her absence. Then they will vote and most likely replace that coordinator with a new one. Hope that answers any Questions you Had, Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Ruf edit

I already commented on the discussion page. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Târgu Frumos edit

Excellent image! Just replaced it, thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

SS Heavy Panzer Battalions edit

Shouldnt the page names be either, for example, 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion or SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101 - not as it is now 101 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, which to me does not read correctly nor have i personnely seen the name presented like such in historical works.

I only post this here as i know that you are one of the lead editors on these articles.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election edit

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election edit

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Waffen SS edit

Hello Mr. Sweeney,

I'm kind of a newbie right here, so I wish that I didn't break any rule by editing a section in Waffen SS article (Section: Foreign volunteers and conscripts).

I'm also impressed with this many medals in your page :D

To the point .. the reason that I removed this picture:

 
Bosnian Volunteers for the SS

that it shows Bosnian "Muslim" SS that are doing Muslim prayer .. the point is that I didn't deny that there were Muslims associated with the Nazi regime,

but showing this picture may cause many people to make a false connection between Muslims and Muslim prayers to the Nazi regime.


I hope that I made myself understanable, and sorry if my English isn't very good :)


If you want to have a further explaination, just message me ..

Ahmad E Shahin (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you edit

 

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) 01:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Thank you edit

 
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) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

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

  The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
From the coordinators

The big news of course was the seventh project coordinator election covering the period ending 30 September. The quality of the candidates was extremely high, with some of the project's top content builders running alongside highly experienced backroom people. Of the eighteen candidates, sixteen were finally appointed, giving us probably the most rounded coordination team so far.

Those elected were: Abraham, B.S., Bellhalla, Cam, Eurocopter, EyeSerene, Ian Rose, Jackyd101, Joe N, Lordoliver, Maralia, MBK004, Nick-D, Roger Davies (lead), Skinny87, The ed17 and TomStar81. Kirill Lokshin continues in his role as coordinator emeritus. Thanks must go to the departing coordinators – Bedford, JonCatalán and Woody – for helping make the project what it is today

The C-class referendum, held at the same time, produced a slight majority of votes for introduction, but was insufficient to demonstrate a clear consensus. So, for the time being at least, therefore, the project will continue without C-class. Otherwise, focus is likely be on the Academy and the development of courses to develop reviewing, copy-editing and article-building skills. Some review of our task forces is also probable, perhaps consolidating some of the smaller, quieter, ones. As ever, input from everyone is not only welcomed but positively encouraged.

The coordinators' gratitude goes not only to those who participated in the election and referenda but also to everyone who works quietly and conscientiously away to make participation in this project rewarding, successful and productive. Milhist is very fortunate in its membership! Thank you all,  Roger Davies talk 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Byzantine navy
  2. Falaise Pocket
  3. Frank Hubert McNamara
  4. Heinrich Bär
  5. Juan Davis Bradburn
  6. Operation Cobra
  7. Port Chicago disaster
  8. SM U-66
  9. SMS Moltke (1910)
  10. Surrender of Japan
  11. Tom Derrick
  12. William Henry Harrison

New featured lists:

  1. List of United States Naval Academy alumni
  2. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (astronauts)
  3. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations)
  4. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (legislators)

New featured pictures:

  1. USS Texas (1892)

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
  2. Ba Cut
  3. Battle of Artemisium
  4. Battle of Fort Washington
  5. Battle of Morotai
  6. Battle of Tippecanoe
  7. Battle of Vimy Ridge
  8. Battle of Wau
  9. Design 1047 battlecruiser
  10. Fountain of Time
  11. Frank Horton Berryman
  12. Gia Long
  13. Henry Wells (general)
  14. Hill 262
  15. Hue chemical attacks
  16. Japanese battleship Haruna
  17. Jon Burge
  18. Nassau class battleship
  19. Operation Freshman
  20. SM UB-43
  21. SM UB-45
  22. Stanley Savige
  23. Xa Loi Pagoda raids
Project news
Awards and honors

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Târgu Frumos ACR edit

Hi, would you mind having a look if your issues within this ACR had been addressed properly and if there is anything else to be done? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fighter Leader edit

I think that is a good idea. Would "Fighter Leader Brittany" be a good translation? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

184 Airborne Division Nembo edit

I'm not exactly sure how creating a red link is "fixing" the link. You are going to create a new page, right? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time edit

There had been prior complaints that right-facing images should be on the left and vice versa. I have reverted your changes which interfered with this. Additionally, your changes were no doubt made from a low screen resolution setting perspective. If possible, attempt to make changes that are more resolution setting neutral.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a current discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fountain of Time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Erhard Mösslacher edit

I'm not sure if Mösslacher qualifies for the posthumous Knight's Cross. He is listed as a recipient on 9 February 1945. He was last seen on the 12 and/or 13th February before the 2nd breakout of Budapest. Please check your sources too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback edit

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

Pmlinediter (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anzac edit

Sorry for budding in but the error was in the template itself. I fixed it and you should be able to make the changes now. the template is called template:Anzac and not template:ANZAC. That makes a difference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian divisions edit

Yes, I can see the template, but the forms used run contrary to the WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME guideline and both English and Italian unit naming practices, which require the ordinal indicator to be included too. It should be 33rd Infantry Division (Italy) or Italian 33rd Infantry Division Acqui or some similar combination if we want to accommodate the name too. Leaving that aside, please retain the piped links. Regards, Constantine ✍ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian Divisions edit

Hi Jim, thanks for doing all that work with the Italian Divisions. As for the Divisional Insignia... that is a problem. I do not know if there is a online source that has them, BUT there is an editor, who probably has them all! His contributions to commons are in excess of 10,000 Coat of Arms (i.e. the last few days) and I got the info about the Regimental Coat of Arms of the Italian Army from him (all as huge scanned images). I am sure he has all of the divisional insignia and I left him a note on his commons talkpage about your request. all the best and happy Easter, --noclador (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you edit

  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 13:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS edit

Hi, I have a question regarding two KC recipients of the Waffen-SS, Karl-Heinz Gieseler and Heinrich Halbeck. Both are listed in Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book but not in Scherzer's work (Halbeck without a first name). What irretates me, is that normally Scherzer takes a position on why a person should be delisted. In these two instances he make no reference what so ever (maybe I overlooked something). Do you happen to have some background on them? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Waffen-SS edit

Hello. Contrary to your apparent belief, the MoS allows hardcoding image sizes for the purposes of visibility, impact and layout, and does not require that all images be left uncoded to allow individual preferences to control them. The visual appearance of an article is just as important as its content, and we all should take care that the overall visual impact of our product is serving our readers well -- all of our readers, including those who do not have accounts and cannot set image preferences. Please do not reflexively uncode images, especially when editors have taken pains to size and position them in a way that contributes to the aesthetics of the page. If you have specific problems with how specific images have been handled, that should be discussed on the article talk page, but mass uncoding of image size is not appropriate.

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For instance, 7 out of the last 10 main page featured articles have hardcoded images other than in the lede section, and if you include the lede section, 9 out of 10 have hardcoded images. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 12:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trento edit

Hi Jim,

I have just gone over the Trento article and added in the missing refs however i cannot locate 'Bauer, p.121'. Since your the only guy to have really overhauled the article i presumme you will know where it turned up from? If so can you add in the book info to the ref section? Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

20 Infantry Division Friuli edit

You are welcome :-) as the Friuli is one of the six Italian division that fought the Axis forces the Italian Army maintains a page about the Friuli - so I just had to translate the text :-) as I was already working on the Friuli I expanded the Friuli Air Assault Brigade article; if you have time to check for grammar errors I would appreciate that very much; as for the divisional insignia: I knew the one of the Friuli, as it can be found on the Italian Armys homepage - some other divisions have the same kind of color and style (with changing name and number); however I do not know which of the Infantry divisions has a different color and therefore I am still waiting for the user I told you about last time as he is currently trying to find a book about the Regio Esercitos divisional insignias. --noclador (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Otto Becher edit

Thanks Jim! I thought I had checked the tool box for disambigs, but I obviously haven't. Thanks for that, mate, I'll go and fix them now. Although, the disambig to gunnery is actually the one I wanted as it provides the necessary definition. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

)

OOB edit

Before we start reverting each other, let me clarify my previous statement: the Italian and Greek OOBs as they stood before the invasion are already given in the main article (not as a list, but as part of the text), while the OOB you have added refers only to the Italian side and is of a far later date, hence out of context and misleading, unless it is elaborated upon. Without a corresponding Greek OOB, without a clarification of its later date, and without moving it in a chronologically correct position, the list provides a wrong ppicture and unbalances the article. Also, since in general lists are to be avoided, a list as long as that one should be avoided either way, and the information contained in it integrated into the text somehow. PS. I intend to expand the article in the following weeks, and there may be need to give the changed OOBs of both sides as they had developed, at least by March 1941 (the Spring Offensive). Perhaps however it would be more useful if we could create an article on the OOBs, showcasing their development in stages, say from before the war (as included in text, but with more info on Greek side, and Italian forces in Dodecanese), on Nov 14, and on Mar 9. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian Knight's Cross recipients edit

Hi, I noticed that you've been heavily involved in expanding the Italian WW II pages. I was wondering if you happen to come across more information on the Italian Knight's Cross recipients (see List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross). It would be nice if you could add a little information on them if you happen to stumble across something. I've been busy working on the Werner Mölders article. If you have time please correct my English. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Actually, I only got as far as half way through the Battle of France section. Everything after that I plan on working over the next few days. No, he was not part of codename Übung Rügen — Bombing of Guernica, a common misconception that helped the left wing German politicians in 1998 and 2005 in discrediting Mölders. The consequences were that JG 74 lost the name Mölders. This is pretty complicated stuff to condense into one or two chapters on a Wiki article. I'm currently reading two books on Mölders. Mölders was not the top scoring pilot of the Spanish Civil War; he was the top scoring German pilot (member of Condor Legion). Is this unclear in the article? I may have to explain that a bit better. Regarding the training material of the Royal Air Force, yes, according to one of my sources this seems to be correct. So what do you think of the article up to that point? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Forlììììììììì division edit

Ciao, thanks much for adding that useuful article on the obscure (I also didn't know it!) Italian Forlì Division. Just, if you're dealing with other articles on Italian units, notice that Forli, without the accent, is comething rather different than Forlì (wht the accent), even if in English this could be not noticed as your pronounciation is bizarre. Let me know if you need help on Italian matters and names again. Ciao and good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

British 2nd Division edit

By all means re-add the orders of battle; but preferably after the relevant sections in the formation's history. I do not believe that a soup of unit names and titles necessarily conveys any sense of history, or significance to anyone not already well acquainted with the intricacies of British regimental numbering and designations.

There is no need to add orders of battle to the discussion page for "safe keeping", they can be retrieved from the article history for many months or years yet before any of the history is archived. HLGallon (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

  The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
From the coordinators

Once again, this month, we have a bumper crop of featured and A-class content, and our heartfelt thanks go to editors who have worked so hard to write these. But with our growth in quality content comes increased demand for reviewers. Which is where you can help.

Reviewing is easy and rewarding. You don't need any prior experience and you don't need to write a full review. Any input is helpful so you initially can just comment on what you're comfortable with. Most reviewers start off by focusing one or two things – say, the historical context, or the text, or the references, or the layout, or the images – and as they gain experience, they broaden the scope of the review. You can easily keep up to date with which articles need review, by copying this text – {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} – to your userpage or talkpage. Thanks in anticipation,  Roger Davies

Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
  2. Battle of Tippecanoe
  3. Capture of Fort Ticonderoga
  4. Design 1047 battlecruiser
  5. Hue chemical attacks
  6. M249 squad automatic weapon
  7. Nassau class battleship
  8. Raymond Brownell
  9. Take Ichi convoy
  10. Zanzibar Revolution

New featured lists:

  1. List of United States Air Force Academy alumni
  2. List of United States Military Academy alumni (astronauts)
  3. List of United States Military Academy alumni (non-graduates)
  4. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)

New featured topics:

  1. Lists of United States Naval Academy alumni

New featured pictures:

  1. Richmond after the American Civil War
  2. Charles P. Stone
  3. Idi Amin caricature
  4. Joan of Arc WWI lithograph
  5. M777 Light Towed Howitzer
  6. Robert McGee, scalped as a child by Sioux Chief Little Turtle

New A-Class articles:

  1. Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
  2. Amagi class battlecruiser
  3. Arthur Henry Cobby
  4. Battle of Barnet
  5. Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)
  6. Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
  7. First Battle of Târgu Frumos
  8. Fort Ticonderoga
  9. Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay
  10. John Northcott
  11. Keith Johnson (cricket administrator)
  12. Landing at Nadzab
  13. Landing on Emirau
  14. Moltke class battlecruiser
  15. Moro River Campaign
  16. Operation Charnwood
  17. Operation Deny Flight
  18. Otto Becher
  19. Polish culture during World War II
  20. Roman–Parthian War of 58–63
  21. Samuel Burston
  22. SMS Seydlitz
  23. SM UB-10
  24. Ton That Dinh
  25. Wolfgang Lüth
Project news
Awards and honors

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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) 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A Class reviews edit

I'm not sure about adding images. Do you have a suggestion about placement and what images to add? I fear that it may ruin the entire layout, something I want avoid until it gets explicitly addressed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards edit

Hey that's nice of you. Thanks! How do you come up with these ideas? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2 edit

Since you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fountain of Time, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiChevrons edit

   The WikiChevrons 
For the creation of numerous Waffen-SS Knight's Cross recipient articles and the expansion of articles on Waffen-SS units. MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom in World War I edit

All help with this and related topics appreciated, because, well, let me put it this way: I have, in my possession, an old GCSE (ages 15 to 16) history textbook and quite frankly it is superior to Wikipedia in pretty much all areas. I've added a little (more when I get more time), but as I said, it's great to have some input from you, as such an experienced editor. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. Hopefully it'll be possible to add sections of some kind about 1) The suffragettes stopping their campaign and turning all patriotic during the war 2) Industrial action during the war. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The article's definitely getting there now, and I'm so impressed with how much it's come on I've put it up for DYK. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The fundamental issue here is that there are very few comparable articles: articles which talk about life on the home front, as it were, rather than the military history. I just redirected "History of the United Kingdom during World War II" -> "Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II", but the World War articles remain a total hotpotch. If you go by the templates:
  1. Anglo-Iraqi War
  2. Anschluss
  3. Austria–Hungary
  4. Azerbaijan during World War II
  5. British Raj
  6. Bulgaria during World War I
  7. Creation of Yugoslavia
  8. Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire
  9. Dominion of Newfoundland
  10. Estonia in World War II
  11. Georgia within the Russian Empire
  12. German occupation of Czechoslovakia
  13. German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I
  14. German occupation of Luxembourg in World War II
  15. Greece during World War I
  16. History of Belgium
  17. History of Brazil (1889–1930)
  18. History of Brazil (1930-1945)
  19. History of France
  20. History of Germany during World War I
  21. History of Germany during World War II
  22. History of Laos to 1945
  23. History of Montenegro
  24. History of Poland (1939–1945)
  25. History of Serbia
  26. History of Slovakia
  27. History of South Africa (1910–1948)
  28. History of the Netherlands (1900–present)
  29. History of the Netherlands (1939–1945)
  30. History of the Republic of China
  31. History of the United States (1865–1918)
  32. History of Ukraine
  33. Hungary during World War II
  34. Hungary in World War I
  35. India in World War II
  36. Italy in World War I
  37. Japan during World War I
  38. Japanese occupation of Burma
  39. Japanese occupation of Indonesia
  40. Japanese occupation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak
  41. Japanese occupation of Singapore
  42. Japanese occupation of Thailand
  43. Manchukuo
  44. Military history of Albania during World War II
  45. Military history of Australia during World War I
  46. Military history of Australia during World War II
  47. Military history of Bulgaria during World War II
  48. Military history of Canada during the Second World War
  49. Military history of Canada during World War I
  50. Military history of Egypt during World War II
  51. Military history of Finland during World War II
  52. Military history of France during World War II
  53. Military history of Gibraltar during World War II
  54. Military history of Greece during World War II
  55. Military history of Italy during World War II
  56. Military history of Japan
  57. Military history of Mexico
  58. Military history of New Zealand during World War II
  59. Military history of New Zealand in World War I
  60. Military history of South Africa during World War II
  61. Military history of the Philippines during World War II
  62. Military history of the Soviet Union
  63. Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II
  64. Military history of the United States during World War II
  65. Mongolian People's Republic
  66. National Liberation War of Macedonia
  67. Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany
  68. Occupation of Denmark
  69. Occupation of Estonia by German Empire
  70. Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany
  71. Occupation of the Channel Islands
  72. Origins of Czechoslovakia
  73. Pahlavi dynasty
  74. Participants in World War I
  75. Participants in World War II
  76. Participation of Ceylon in World War II
  77. Persian Empire
  78. Poland during World War I
  79. Portugal in World War I
  80. Principality of Albania
  81. Resistance in Lithuania during World War II
  82. Romania during World War I
  83. Romania during World War II
  84. Russian Armenia
  85. Russian history, 1892–1917
  86. Second Sino-Japanese War
  87. Single-party period of the Republic of Turkey
  88. Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940
  89. Spain in World War II
  90. Sweden during World War II
  91. Switzerland during the World Wars
  92. The Emergency (Ireland)
  93. The United Kingdom in World War I
  94. Ukraine during World War I
  95. Vietnam during the First World War
  96. Vietnam during World War II
  97. Yugoslavia

... and yet that doesn't really account for the civil/military divide. Your thoughts? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really like the look of those linebreaks. Can't we have them as spaced paragraphs? No big deal, and I like your section about casualties - it fits nicely with the themes of the article. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. I don't get on with the word "casualties" (mainly because my GCSE history course equated it to "deaths", which plainly isn't true), anyhow, so I'd probably dislike both possibilities regardless. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Here would be / is my hitlist, in order of priority:
  1. Propaganda & morale (for GA class)
  2. Modern interpretations & controversies (haven't research this, hard to distinguish from 100% military stuff) (for A-Class)
  3. Social welfare & changes (excluding women) (for FA class)
Then I would feel it would have all the necessary sections to be deemed complete enough for the classes mentioned above. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
When you source the second section of Aftermath (which is looking good, I must say, though evidentially incomplete - where are the poppies? ;) ), be careful to distinguish the United Kingdom and the British Empire ("Britain") as a whole, though I'm not an expert. Some careful wording (remain subordinate to London, as they now like saying on Radio 4) should do it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have all the dates, but a think a mention in passing of Remembrance Sunday in passing wouldn't go amiss, especially as we have some neat images for that. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of it was neatly there in that other article already, but thanks. If you had or could find something to give a few generalised statements about war poetry that could be added, then the expand tag could be removed, and I think the article put up for A-class. What do you think? From what I've seen of A-class reviews, it should get a good going over, a few different perspectives - exactly what the article needs. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK goes live in about 14 hours, by the way. "Did you know... that during World War I, Britons could be fined for feeding the pigeons?" - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Or just remove the expand tag and be happy with what's there now? I'll do that I think, and fill in a little generic bumpf to pad it out, for aesthetic reasons, obviously. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
We're nearing the upper limit in terms of size now, and I'm sure whole books have been written about the IOM and internment. So we have to be careful. Perhaps the best idea would be to add information about "aliens" in piecemeal chunks to other sections, where relevant, and ignore the IOM issue. I haven't researched the topic, but I infer that it might be possible to note the impact of aliens in industry, and probably better, in social change. Avoiding specifics should stop it getting drawn out and/or controversial. Anyhow, that's my piece, I'm sure you know more about the topic than I do. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, your request for a PR reminded me: some friends of a friend said that they would get round to giving the article a good copy-edit in the next few days (fingers crossed). By all account they're good guys, so might it be wise to delay the PR for a week (...unless they take longer than that to get processed usually?). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I empathise. All I've got to do is to look at Beckett's compendium of all things WWI before I feel the urge to keep on adding. Doesn't mean we can't create relevant pages for those when we're done with this article though! Just let me know when you think A-class would be suitable. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay then! I'm sure you know the system better than I do, so please, be my guest and file for it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean to request a normal PR? Wouldn't that be a separate issue from A-class PR? Jees, I'm confused. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'll probably take a look, though I must say the "home front" has particular significance for an exam I'm taking soon, so I might not be able to devote quite so much time to other similar articles (though I must say it's an interesting topic). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, fine by me. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/History of the United Kingdom during World War I

 
John Bull on a British First World War recruiting poster

WWII Italian Divisions Strength edit

hmm,... I just saw the footnotes about the divisions strength you put on the Italian divisions pages; the problem is the numbers are wrong! Divisions nominally had exactly 13,500 men. In reality the numbers changed between 8,000 and 18,000 depending on where and when and for what a division was employed. I have looked up the official nominal strength of an Infantry division:

  • HQ: 336 men
  • Infantry Regiment: 3,279 men
  • Infantry Regiment: 3,279 men
  • Artillery Regiment: 2,769 men
  • CC.NN. Legion: 1,693 men
  • Mortar Battalion: 435 men
  • Anti-Tank Company: 241 men
  • Engineer Battalion: 440 men
  • Divisional Support: 1,028 men

in total the strength is exactly 13,500 - but I doubt that a division ever had this exact number (i.e. the divisions in Russia were all around 17,500 men and the ones in Yugoslavia way below that number). What to do now with this information,... I don't know - as it is: you are now the expert about Italian WWII divisions :-) --noclador (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I have only this online source, which is very reliable in everything with the Regio Esercito. But I know for sure, that 7,000 is way to low for Italian Divisions; just an example the 33rd Acqui Division in Cephalonia in 1943: when the Germans attacked the Division suffered about 1,300 fatalities, approximately 5,000 soldier and about 200 officers were executed by Gebirgsjäger and 5,000 were sent as POW to Germany: total : about 11,500 men; and most of the divisions 18th Infantry Regiment wasn't even on Cephalonia but on Corfu. The Italian Partisan Association puts the number of Acqui soldier on Cephalonia at 11,500 troops and and 525 officers, without anyone from the 18th Regiment [1]. I also have the exact numbers for the Alpini Division Cuneense; which went to Russia with 573 Officers and 16,887 Troops [2] (before the Division was augmented with 2 additional battalions in December 1942). I could find the numbers for other divisions if I went looking - would that be necessary? or are this refes enough? --noclador (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on where. 7,000 is about right for an Italian infantry division of the AS42 type, in North Africa. See http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/italian-division-strengths-at-the-end-of-the-battle/ 79.74.113.219 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I note that you insert this footnote into many of the Italian division articles. I honestly think that this should not be done, since the footnote appears to be quite wrong to me. For example, this page shows that the standard infantry division had 13,500 men: http://www.regioesercito.it/reparti/fanteria/redivfant.htm This, highly reliable source, shows 12,979: http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/40_organ/div_inf_40.html - I really do not think that the 7,000 men footnote is appropriate. I would like to know what the source for this number is (I know the book title, but what is the book author claiming to be the source?) you can leave messages for me at my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andreas1968 79.74.113.219 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

101. Honi Légvédelmi Vadászrepülő Osztály edit

I just wanted to thank you for your efforts about this WW2 article. Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The United Kingdom in World War I edit

  On May 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The United Kingdom in World War I, 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.
Shubinator 10:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Carabinieri edit

Hi Jim, over at the Carabinieri a POV warrior keeps on inserting a factually wrong, biased and original research based sentence [3] - after his first edit [4] I rewrote the entire paragraph [5]; but well obviously he is stubborn (and I suspect a return of another horrible POV warrior [6][7][8]). Could you please keep an eye on the article too? thanks, --noclador (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

fresh attempts by User:Bibiki to further his POV-agenda at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases and Wikipedia:Third opinion... --noclador (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the British Army during the Victorian Era edit

I am sorry that you and I have once again clashed over the structure and/or content of an article, but hopefully this can be resolved.

When I first created the article, I divided the history into roughly three periods, given the long timeline. The first period covered the long stagnation from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean War; the second, the Crimean War and the Indian Rebellion of 1857, when it was clear that reform was needed but nothing immediately happened; the third, the Cardwell and subsequent reforms.

When you merged the periods into one timeline but instead sections on Organisation, and campaigns and so on, I believe some of the internal consistency was lost. An analogy would be to do away with articles on the British Army in World War I and the British Army in World War II, and instead create an article on the British Army in the 20th Century, in which the Battle of the Somme and Operation Overlord were lumped together into a section on "Operations in France", and the creation of new corps and regiments (such as the Parachute Regiment) were combined with the draw-down from the 1990s onwards in a single "Organisation" section which left the reader confused as to the contexts in which these creations or amalgamations were made.

While I welcome your additions of links and corrections to some of my facts and syntax, I believe that losing the natural breaks in continuity, in particular the pre- and post-Cardwell states, also lost some clarity.

I hope we can work together to improve the article. HLGallon (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edits (02/06/09) are constructive and useful (in my humble opinion, of course). I have one proviso. Placing the description of the East India Company's Army after the description of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the catastrophic event which effectively destroyed both the Company and its armies, seems a little anachronistic. Rather than revert, I'll try and work up a solution to this. HLGallon (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy the fish edit

Hey, thanks for the comment about the William Windsor (goat), and that link :-) Billy has been in the news quite a bit - see the DYK nomination here. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rescue edit

Jim: I see you made a change in response to my question about "rescue," but I am still left wondering. Was their a plan to "rescue" the family (like the rescue the following year) or simply a plan to offer them asylum. The present para leaves me thinking someone proposed a daring "rescue" for the Romanovs and the king vetoed it. Or did he just oppose asylum? Hartfelt (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Question re dec of war edit

Jim: In the US, Congress declares war. Did Asquith himself declare war (as is stated in your article) or was this done by the Parliament, the King, the Cabinet? Just raises a quesiton in my mind about the precision of the statement and the scope of the PM's powers. Also, as previosuly suggested, I think that the article would benefit from giving some more info and perspective about all the MPs who served in uniofrm. DId they have to resign from Parliament? What was the total during the war? Who the most impt (Chirchill)? Hartfelt (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Royal prerogative (a very complicated series of conventions, in essence) is extended to the Prime Minister, who can thus decide these things unilaterally. As Churchill describes it, it sounds as though the declaration of war was a mere technicality once the ultimatum was sent. "It was eleven o’clock at night – twelve by German time – when the ultimatum expired. The windows of the Admiralty were thrown wide open in the warm night air... As the first stroke of the hour boomed out, a rustle of movement swept across the room. The war telegram, which meant, “Commence hostilities against Germany”, was flashed to the ships and establishments under the White Ensign all over the world. I walked across the Horse Guards Parade to the Cabinet room and reported to the Prime Minister and the Ministers who were assembled there that the deed was done." As for the MPs who served, that's another question, of course. By no means did they have to resign. Who was the most important? Depends whether you include members of the house of Lords or not. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OOB of Trieste Division edit

May I ask why my edits were undone? The article now contains wrong (8 Bersaglieri were with Ariete, not Trieste never mind, still, it was LII, not XXXII engineers, and an Autoreparto Misto, which does not translate as 'heavy'), and misleading information (all the detail on Italian infantry does not apply to Trieste for any of its actual combat career). I am happy to have a discussion on the discussion page of the articleon how to improve it. But please do not revert back to the article version containing errors. Many thanks. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The cited text was removed since the organisation it describes is unlikely to ever have applied to Trieste, which was not an ordinary infantry division. I can e.g. not find any information confirming it ever had a Blackshirt formation, and it certainly did not have one in North Africa. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I moved it, it was confusing before. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I edit

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

Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Autotrasportabile is NOT the same as motorised edit

I note you believe that autotrasportabile is the same as motorised ((cur) (prev) 09:39, 9 April 2009 Jim Sweeney (talk | contribs) m (5,506 bytes) (moved 17 Infantry Division Pavia to 17 Motorised Division Pavia: correct name) (undo) ). It is not. The Italian army used two different words for two different things for a reason. Autotrasportabile means that a division could be moved by truck by virtue of its organisation, but that it did not have the transport capacity as part of its own structure to do so, i.e. it would depend on transport being made available to it by higher headquarters to be moved by truck (this was the same system as was used by the British army for its infantry divisions in the war. Motorised means that a division was fully equipped with trucks sufficient to transport it. Therefore the correct name of e.g. Pavia in English would be "truck moveable", not "motorised". http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/40_organ/div_autotrans_40as.html I therefore think that all the articles about the North African infantry divisions should be renamed accordingly, in order to avoid giving the wrong impression. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But motorised is wrong, and that's what they are currently called. Why not use either "Truck Portable" (the direct translation), or "Semi-Motorised", which is correct in spirit. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Semi-Motorised would be better than infantry, since they were not pure infantry divisions. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Long, Long trail website edit

Jim, I've responded to your query about regarding this as an RS at the noticeboard, WP:RSN#The Long, Long Trail. In my view there are sufficient reasons to consider it as such, as I've explained there. I think I'd previously put something to this effect on the MilHist Britsh Work Group page. David Underdown (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jim_Sweeney/Archive_1&oldid=1148412761"