Reedmalloy

Hello Reedmalloy. I'm doing some research into Operation BOLO. I have a question on a certain portion of the Operation BOLO article, which I believe you added under your former name Buckboard. Within the MiG Threat paragraph it states, "Rules of engagement that had previously permitted the F-4 MiGCAP to escort the F-105s in and out of the target area had been revised in December to limit MiGCAP penetration to the edge of SAM coverage." I would like to find the source document for this statement. I have not been able to find any mention of this change within several sources on Operation BOLO and Operation ROLLING THUNDER. Any help in clarifying this statement would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Daneman3 May 22, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneman3 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how to get back to you, so I'll respond here. The source is Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972, by Col. Marshall L. Michel III, former RF-4C and F-4E A/C with the 432nd TRW in Thailand, published by the Naval Institute Press in 1997. In Chapter 2 "The Battles Begin", he relates on page 66 that in late November 1966 SAMs shot down three F-4Cs without ECM pods (the F-4Cs were not yet equipped) or RHAW equipment, which F-4s were just beginning to receive. When eight US aircraft, none of which were pod or RHAW equipped, were shot down on December 2, 7AF immediately applied the restriction to the SAM-vulnerable MIGCAP. NV GCI controllers immediately took advantage of the situation, initiating 90% of their 47 intercepts in December against strike force F-105s in the target area, and while the Thuds handled the MiG-17 attacks easily, the MiG-21s were more aggressive, shot down one F-105 on December 12, nearly bagged several others, partly because of the close formations required for effective use of the ECM pods, and forced 20% to jettison their bomb loads. Operation Bolo resulted, primarily as a pre-emptive measure. Hope this helps.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

btw, thanx for the heads-up. I went back and made the appropriate citation in the text.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for the clarification! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneman3 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

...for your your spell-checking, revising and improving History of the Swiss Air Force! I have absolutely no ties with either the military or the Air Force, but sometimes *any* subject grips me and I have to extend/translate an article... :-) --Keimzelle (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the previous lead was better. It gave a full impression of the force i.e. exact number of aircrafts etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am referring to the opening summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I just noticed you actually added more information in the lead. But can you please add in the lead the exact number of aircrafts it operated? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll add specific figures for the maximum number of aircraft usd at any one time by the AAF in the opening summary. However, there is a table under Growth of the AAF, aircraft that gives this figure and other totals year-by-year farther down. I appreciate your interest very much! --Reedmalloy (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your effort. I appreciate your help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The modifications made to the article Memphis Belle were changed, I've already made a response on the discussion page which was made in May of this year. Furthermore, the reference used for the opening sentence states that the aircraft was one of the first and not the first to complete 25 missions and return to the United States. Please do not modify this statement since it comes straight from the usaf.mil website. I also removed a statement stating that it is one of the most famous aircraft since it violates the WP:NPOV policy, please review this policy before making changes to the article. -Signaleer (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll make my own decisions about what does or does not conform to policy, and I do not need tutoring. There is nothing sacrosanct about information posted on a military website, and if for any reason it needs rewriting, I'll rewrite it. Thanx anyway.--Reedmalloy (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Given you expansion of the Far East Air Force (United States) you might be interested in adding to the stub article United States Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific that I have created recently. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I responded to your comment on the talk-page with comments of my own that will hopefully solve any worries you might have about my re-writing the article. Nice to meet you, Skinny87 (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 27 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Interception of the Rex, 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.

Cbl62 08:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comment on the talk page of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The Airborne Warfare Barnstar
		To Reedmalloy, for his extraordinarily hard work editing, maintaining and generally helping out on articles about airborne warfare. Skinny87 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Skinny...thanx. Needless to say, I feel like a hypocrite for some of my carping. Tryly, the real reward in all this is not recognition but passing on knpowledge.

Thanks for your great contribs to Alfred V. Verville, who is my great,great,great Uncle! :)

Dear Reedmalloy: This is a THANK YOU for your recent edit on the "Angels of Bataan." Not a "fine point" at all but exactly the type of support one hopes to receive on Wikipedia--particularly someone like me, who does not have personal experience in the military, when writing on those who served. Thanks again! --Ksibley (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank YOU. I appreciate the feedback. The article is very interesting and I hope to contribute more as I learn more. Thanx for your contribution!--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious, not concerned or worried, just curious, about why you decided to delete that bit about Robin Olds getting one of his P-38 kills while gliding with dry carbs and windmilling props. Too trivial? Not a shining moment in his career (because he screwed up the fuel controls for a few seconds)? Article is looking good anyway, so Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I would love to keep it. But I got curious and checked it against the records and the basic premises are incorrect. He did not shoot down any aircraft between October 6, 1944 and February 9, 1945. Nor could I find any reference to the event in a quick reading of the group's December missions ("late 1944"). I must have missed the part about the P-38's engines, but that too would be in error, since the group switched to Mustangs in September. I'm hoping that the time frame is wrong and someone will repost with the correct information. Even if the contributor doesn't source, I can locate it and source it myself. Just a side note: Olds is someone I have always admired, but that doesn't blind me to the negatives that are there in everyone. In combat everybody stresses and makes mistakes--the good ones get away with it!) Thanx for calling me on this--I'm crotchety but flexible!--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aha! It begins to sound like somebody somewhere was writing more for a pop audience than for posterity. A yarn of a story... Good sleuthing! Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Hi~! I thought... perhaps this might interest you again → Talk:Robin Olds#Should we add this? ← , eh? Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You just now added a broken reference called "ATC/" to The Hump. Could you go back there please and give the details. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are many uncited statements in Air Mail scandal which you might be able to help reference. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a plan, and I'll give it a shot. Thanx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I was confused by your recent addition to the Pathfinder disambiguation page, and I'd like to understand your intent so we can make the entry clearer. The article you linked, 482d Operations Group, doesn't seem to have information on any topic referred to as "Pathfinder"; it does discuss the 482d Bombardment Group, which apparently included or consisted of pathfinders (apparently referring to the type of soldier/paratrooper). If the group itself was actually called "Pathfinder" or "Pathfinders" or something like that, then a) the article should be amended to state that, and b) the entry should link to 482d Bombardment Group, as in "Pathfinder may refer to: 482d Bombardment Group, a WWII U.S. Air Force unit also called the Pathfinders," or something like that. Your clarification is appreciated. Propaniac (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

I created a new article Chain Lightning (1950 film) only to find that there already was a stub article called Chain Lightning (film). I used the specific wording of "1950 film" to differentiate the term "chain lightning". Can you help; one or the other title is fine with me? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

We must have been on coinciding wavelengths. I created the other one a couple of hours ago. I used xxx(film) because in my experience the use of a date in the parenthetical modifier is to differentiate two films of the same name, while "(film)" differentiates the film from other uses. I'd merge under mine, but only because I think that follows usual guidelines. Otherwise it's immaterial to me. :-).--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at yours, I'd say keep yours! Maybe include anything from my stub-by effort that wasn't already included.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now, were you watching Turner Classic Movies this morning where Chain Lightning popped up? That's the reason I began the article but had to wait until I had a bit of information built up to flesh out the article. Would you mind if I simply switched all the information I accumulated into your earlier article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

lol! That's exactly what happened. I often go to wiki to check on movies and was mildly surprised that CL hadn't been written up before. I'd be proud to have yours replace mine in its entirety--much better starter article. Of course, with my penchant for tinkering, there are sources I'll be checking to flesh out production and aircraft used even more. I assume you also saw the LoBianco article at the TCM site. The info about Mantz's B-17 and Van Nuys Airport is worthy, esp. considering they did a Memphis Belle takeoff for "Naughty Nellie".--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, I welcome the addition as I found the film a bit of a surprise and wanted to do it justice in the article. Imagine, the use of escape pods, mixed jet/rocket powerplants, streamlined "flush" canopy, brake parachutes and other innovations all incorporated into the Willis JA-3/4, and in 1949! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

BTW, the article is now retitled Chain Lightning (film) and includes as much detail as I can find. On an ancillary note, the film was never released in DVD, but I did have my DVD burner running yesterday, so, if you want a copy? send me an email. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

Thanx for your offer but I DVRed it and my son burned me a copy. It's been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to further collaborations! Wishing you and yours a happy and successful 2010.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tokyo Joe also shot in 1949 appeared on TCM yesterday, as well. I already had the DVD but have never watched it so it inspired me to re-do the article Tokyo Joe (1949). Check it out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC).Reply

Hi! I restored the sentence you deleted with a cited page. Sorry the page is in Japanese. I couldn't find any ref. in English. But please see its Google translation. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanx. That's all I was looking for.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Reedmalloy. You have new messages at Talk:Robin Olds.
Message added 11:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Actually, I would appreciate a lot if you could respond to the discussion at the provided linked section. Thank you~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consider it begun! I'll update at the article talk page as things progress.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

•   Hello there Reed, I found something that might interest you.

1. BG Robin Olds - "Fly/In Cruise/In" part 1 on YouTube
2. BG Robin Olds - "Fly/In Cruise/In" part 2 on YouTube
3. BG Robin Olds - "Fly/In Cruise/In" part 3 on YouTube (listen closely @ timeframe 1:55 of this video)
4. BG Robin Olds - "Fly/In Cruise/In" part 4 on YouTube

Best regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fantastico, Dave. Grazie!--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Saw your username and it caught my attention... I too am a fan of Adam-12!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

congrats. I believe you're the first to figure it out!--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I shoulda gone with DesotoGage...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Johnny and Roy! (Or I guess I should say the other way around).--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

My father, Stephen W. Thompson was the observer when he shot down that first plane. Look him up on Wikipedia. I grew up in Dayton and got BSc,MSc and PhD from OSU-- go Buckeyes. Sorry to edit your page, but only way I know to contact. As a child I was one of the few people ever on board the first B-17 which crashed on takeoff at Wright Field

I will reply by e-mail.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

G'day Reed, I swapped redirected the image link for the ribbon bar of an Officer of the Order of the Southern Cross on your main User Page. I have just moved the file to Commons and retitled it to reflect the standard English translation. As the original Wikipedia file has a slightly different name to the new Commons file, I erred on the side of editing your user page rather than allowing the link to become broken when the original Wikipedia file is deleted. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that really good info on General of the Air Force. The efforts to appoint that rank to someone in the 1950s are are pretty hazy chapter in Air Force history and we can use all the info there is about that in the article. -OberRanks (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recognize the quote about FM 100-20 being the first forward air control Field Manual; it's in Budiansky's Air power: the men, machines, and ideas that revolutionized war, from Kitty Hawk to Gulf War II, although GoogleBooks won't give me the page number. If the factoid is in error, it must be because the source is mistaken. Alternatively, the unsourced replacement factoid should have a source to supersede the claimed error.

What source do you have for your assertion that FM 100-20 was preceded by another manual?

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Not my assertion but the US Air Force's, which is where I got the information. I went back and found what you're referring to (in Arthur Coningham) and the line I edited said nothing about "first forward air control Field Manual". It said: "...The pamphlet was later copied nearly verbatim as the first United States Field Manual on use of air power. FM 100-20 also included... " A succinct history of Air Corps field manuals is in Note 39 at United States Army Air Corps and of their predecessor (TR 440-15) in the section it footnotes. I got it from Greer, author of the USAF Historical Study on the development of Army Air Doctrine (No. 89), available at the United States Air Force Historical Research Agency site under "Studies", or use the PDF link at Note 7 of the Air Corps article, page 113: "...issued 15 April 1940...first of a series...to cover all phases of Air Corps tactics...superseding TR 440-15, 15 October 1935...". Also, in 1997, on occasion of the 50th Anniversary of USAF, the Air Force History and Museums Program office under Dr. Richard Hallion published the two-volume official history for use as a text: Winged Shield, Winged Sword. In Volume I (1907-1950), Chapter 6 "Reaction to the war in Europe", page 192, it states: "The effort to keep pace with German tactical development included the issuance on April 15, 1940, of a new War Department field manual, FM 1-5, Employment of Aviation of the Army." That's where I first learned about FM 1-5. Finally, you can read FM 100-20 in its entirety. There is a private site (Hyperwar, iirc) out there that indexes most of the pre-war FMs, including the Air Corps', on PDF. I found it with a little google effort. However the USAF also publishes it on-line. FM 100-20. All field manuals have an entry on their contents page that gives a "supersedes" instruction. FM 100-20's (page 4) states: "This manual supersedes FM 1-5, 18 January 1943", which was the date of the last AAF version of FM 1-5. That version is out there too. Its page 1-2 states that it "supersedes FM 1-5, April 15, 1940". As for Budiansky, even good writers (not that I agree with his conclusions, because I don't. I too have read a lot about air power--and for 50 years--while he has an obvious and tedious axe to grind.) and careful editors make mistakes; I myself called it "FM-200" in my edit summary. Hope this helps. Cheers. --Reedmalloy (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

An afterthought, I'm a little dense on the concept of my having to footnote a minor change that leaves the gist of the original edit unchanged (if that's what you meant above--if not, forget I'm even writing this). I didn't write the original line, and frankly, am not interested to go back and find out who did and whether or not they documented it. My interest in wikipedia is that whatever I contribute be accurate--not just "factual", but complete. I have thousands of edits changing this or that and adding other data because the "fact" wasn't as complete as it should have been. I am a cop by training and I take "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" seriously. The rest of wikipedia, however, is too vast and too transient for me to worry about. The failure of research was Budiansky's--he made the error. Everything I found out about FMs took about 15 minutes of web surfing, if that much. This realization now makes me wonder what else he screwed up. Whether "FM 100-20 was copied from Coningham" is fact or not is somebody else's problem. As long as it's in there, it's not going to be claimed as the "first" field manual, because it wasn't. End of rant. As I said, if that's not what you meant, please forgive my diatribe and forget I even mention it.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Mr. Malloy, you are a man after my own heart. I asked for proof; you most definitely provided it.

No worries; I was the original author of the phrase in question. Now that it has been proven wrong, it can remain buried in the dustbin of revisions. You may have done only 15 minutes web surfing–but they were well spent minutes.

I only challenged you because the vast majority of changes in WP are NOT sourced, just as the vast majority of WP submissions remain unsourced years after the text was written. Or changes are made to the text, but not to the citation (which I suspected in this case).

Personally, I usually will not write so much as a word without citing proof. In some few cases where I do not have the source to hand, I will return to add a citation later. I always mark these needy spots with the ^{[citation needed]} tag.

In summary, it's good to meet you. Thanks for the edit. You saved me from error.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

George, the pleasure was mine. Reedmalloy is a nom de plume--please feel free to call me "John". I have to admit that I wasn't always this way, but I came to find that so much sourness in life is trying to win arguments when factuality is so much easier to live with. I have enjoyed this interchange very much and look forward to finding your work again as I cruise through wiki. Call on me anytime.

John --Reedmalloy (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Like what you did with I live In Grosvenor Square - wondered if I could persuade you to take a look at Madonna of the Seven Moons and Secret Mission - I'd appreciate some input.Excellentone (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Happy to, although I've not yet seen either, embarrassed to admit. I like the challenge of trying to get the feel of a film (particularly if it requires a degree of verisimilitude) in writing a plot summary while keeping it succinct, and adding behind-the-scenes facts. Most of the film articles I edit are a process of discovery for me as well, films I hadn't previously seen but enjoyed when I did. I just did a brief review of both films and they look promising. I'll see if I can view them and get back to you on your page.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great work on the Aeronautics Division article. Please consider a change in wording from: "the first military airplane casualty" to: "the first airplane fatality" (or "casualty"). Of course, it was the first military death, but more broadly, the first death in any airplane. DonFB (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Concur. Odd that it's never occurred to me before.--Reedmalloy (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your efforts on Elmer Gedeon. However, now you have a lot of text in the article that is not supported by the inline citation and have added two general references. It is 2011 and for at least three years inline citations have been the preferred method of citation. If you feel you are going to be unable to add inline citations to show which facts came from which sources, I will revert all of your work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The general sources added were not to avoid inline citations, but to add to the reader's understanding and enjoyment. One, which was an update by Bedingfield of his own previous work (he obviously and correctly, for example, thought a V-1 site was a more significant descriptive fact than nebulous "construction works"), cited frequently in the article by whoever edited it before me, was the source of my data and was to be the source for the citations. I simply ran out of time in the previous session, then it slipped my mind yesterday. A simple request would have been sufficient, not to mention more civil, than a gratuitous lecture.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

At "my" Caleb V. Haynes biography, I have a slightly humorous bit by Captain Cavellini of the Rex where he invites the U.S. airmen down to lunch. This is taken from William P. Head's book, page 203. You could incorporate this bit into "your" interception article if you wish. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Exchanges like this are what I love about this place. Thanx, amigo. (Irony, I was there already, having picked up a tidbit during my source editing for Hap Arnold)--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

With this edit, you changed Samuel Lahm's college to Washington & Lee College. The Congressional bio says "attended Washington College, Pennsylvania," which is Washington & Jefferson College. I changed it, but if there's another source that says otherwise, please let me know.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

At the time I was editing Frank Purdy Lahm using an on-line book of a locally-written biography. I believe that's where my data came from, but I admit the two "Washington &" colleges was confusing to me at the time, but needless to say I'm cool with your edit. Thanx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

It certainly does confuse a lot of people, including myself at times. Cheers!--GrapedApe (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

i recently found this one from a friendly fire incident.

July 25, 1944, an Allied bombing mission near the western area of Saint-Lô carried out by the RAF resulted in heavy casualties on the 13th US infantry.

Does this even exist or something? did UK took part of it or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That occurred as preparation for Operation Cobra#Main attack and breakthrough 25–27 July on July 24 and 25. AFAIK, the RAF was not involved in any way--heavy bombers of the Eighth Air Force and mediums of the Ninth Air Force. The units bombed were the 47th Infantry of the 9th Division and the 120th Infantry of the 30th Division. Hope that helps.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the edits to the Operation Varsity article. I've been all but inactive for a long time, but even a brief look over it shows that its in quite a bad state. It was my first article,got it all the way from stub to FA in record time in 2008, and I think you can tell. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article, not surprising when you factor in that I rewrote part of my BA dissertation to create it. It needs a major overhaul, mainly in the sections Aftermath and onwards, but I don't have my sources with me, and there are several new books on Varsity that need to be used as well. Do you have any intention of expanding/rewriting it completely? Skinny87 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanx for the kind words. I've been remiss in visiting it. I was just patrolling (out of curiosity) while tweaking the article on Brereton and saw the additions on losses. The C-47 losses I knew were incorrect because IX TCC lost 12 alone in the serials dropping on DZ S. (I just went through Warren's account and found that a total of 30 C-47s were lost--13 in the British drops and 17 at the US DZ/LZs. So even my edit was in error.) I don't have any plans for a major rewrite, but I will review the additions made over the last few months to bring them up to the quality of the rest of the article where needed. New sources would be a breath of fresh air. The C-46 losses are given as 19, with an additional lost on takeoff, but up to five of those appear to be salvage write-offs after return to base, muddling the picture.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The info came off this site: http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/weekinhistory.asp which is basically a "This week in US Aviation History" page put up by the USAF Museum staff. Unfortunately, it updates daily and shelves the previous day's info. Probably need a "real" source though... Ckruschke (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Here we go - http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=Early_Years&sd=01/01/1900&ed=12/31/1939. If you click on one of the links on the right, you can drill down to the "milestones" that the Museum staff uses for the "This Day" e-mail that we get here in the HQ bldg at W-P. I'll go over and add that reference to the Hap page. Ckruschke (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Danke schoen!--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you, thank you , thank you for the outstanding work you did on the 38th Bomb Group page. My father served in the 822nd, and I am webmaster for the 38th Bomb Group Association. I'm also a Buckeye! Tombehrens (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanx, Tom, your assessment is greatly appreciated. The 822nd, as epitomized by the Ormoc attack, was a courageous bunch. I am an administrator on the 456th BG's web site (we were attacked by a virus, which hurt the effort); my dad (still with us) was a B-24 tailgunner with the 745th BS.--Reedmalloy (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on the article The Hump PBS (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Hump was one of my earliest stubs it is very pleasing to see what an interesting article it has grown into and I can see from the edit history that you have brought it up to this level almost unaided well done.

I have now finished my edits to the page. All I wanted to do was clean up the citations a little. But a some observations on how you can improve the citations:

• In some places you need to separate out the inline citations (easy to do now) so that the granularity of them is to a page and not to a 100+ page article. (see for example Hanson-2008-33 and Hanson-2008-35) where I have started to do that for one of the PDF files.
• If a note is not an Wikiedpedia editorial comment but a factoid, put into a note to keep it out of the main body of the text then it need a citation (it usually goes at the end of the quote or paraphrase. See for example "PLM later became standard practice throughout the AAF. (Glines 1991, p. 104)" to do this you can use {{harv}} placed just before the last full stop (The "harvnb" template just means harvard style with no brackets)

This edit of mine contains some examples of "fixing" both of the above. Now that the citations are split into short and long it was easy to spot a couple where there is no page number and one where I could not find mention of the fact in the citation. I have marked them.

I hope you take my remarks as they were intended: some positive comments to help in a small way to improve the page. Good luck and if you need any assistance from me in the future please ask on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the Barnstar, your kind words, and the encouragement. Formatting in wiki is a dynamic process and I just try to keep up (usually)! Almost always the source of the note is the citation preceding it. Occasionally it isn't, and those I will work on.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to let you know, I nominated you for autopatroller rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. I've found your page creations to be very well thought out, and referenced, and I think you can be trusted with the privilege of not bothering new page patrollers with reviewing your contributions. I found your long tenure, and your small, yet well done, page creations to be an excellent example of good contributions.

I nominated you, however, without consulting you first. With that in mind, if this is something you're not interested in, please say so here or at the nomination page, and if that's the case, I'm sorry if I put you on the spot. But notwithstanding, I think your contributions to the encyclopedia are excellent, and I hope this will make your contributions all the more efficient. Whatever your decision, thank you for your good work, and I hope to see you around. Shadowjams (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Reedmalloy, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thank you both very much. I am still learning wiki-ing, believe it or not, and will study this. In the meantime, recognition is always appreciated, even if not the main goal of being here!--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reed, I was just about to compliment you (really, no, really) on your additions and changes to the article; you should have seen it before! Yes, Turner Classic Movies had it on yesterday morning, and it got me scrambling to look up more information on the film. A typical actioneer, but the aerial scenes are at least watchable if not redeeming the production from the usual dross of the time. That it is a Capra film, now largely forgotten, also makes it worthy of appraisal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC). ...and now, another task if you choose to accept it (`a la Mission: Impossible), see No Highway in the Sky. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC).Reply

An agitator! And with one of my favorite flicks. I admit I've always thought of it as a British film, as in, I wonder how many other British films Jimmy Stewart has appeared in? without really exercising my curiosity. I admit too to a fondness for British film from the 30's to 50's (esp. The Archers, Ealing, London Films, Hitchcock and anything with Deborah Kerr), hopefully without being a film snob about it. Did you notice in the most recent showing of Flight the Board of Censors stamp at the beginning? I hesitate to use the word "obviously", but obviously that is a U.S. made film, but the print obtained by TCM appears to have originated in the UK, no? Or does that muddy up the waters even more? You've hatched a conundrum that I'll explore when my latest project is wrapped in a few days. btw, "Reed" is a nom de wiki, and friends usu. wind up calling me "J.C." (But since USAF days I also answer to "hey, you").--Reedmalloy (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good article, but the statement about all flight operations stopping in 1963 is not correct. I got my private pilot license at the WPAFB Aero Club in 1967, flying Cessna 150s out of Wright Field. The club continued to operate from Wright Field until late 1971 or early 1972, when it moved to Area C. The Wright Field tower was still operating when I was flying there. N9531l (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanx. I lived there then, as a dependent in Page Manor (63-65), and I recall flying taking place on the field too. However, I went by what the source said, but will modify said edit since my recollections are corroborated. Thanx!--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have an interest in that article and Merian C Cooper. Who was the banned editor who wanted a super short plot section? At least a topic sentence at the beginning, explaining that it is a movie within a movie, would help orient the reader better.71.246.144.154 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC).Reply

Thanx, everyone. I hope your day is a happy one too.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks like we were both watching Turner Classic Movies again. Take a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC).Reply

AAC. Great minds, etc. etc. I DVR'ed it to watch it on my day off and it took off (so to speak) from there!--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Take a look here. FWiW, dang that TCM ... Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC).Reply

Holy smoke, I missed one! But I know the film (and the 509th) and will see if there's anything interesting I can add. Good job.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Military Division of the Missouri, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Department of the Missouri. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Created article and took information from Department of Missouri, where it had been authored, to new article, where it belongs. Deleted the duplicate information in Department of the Missouri as not related to that entity. Took information from "Department of the Missouri (Indian Wars}" and placed it in Department of the Missouri, the legitimate article for that entity. Deleted it from the second article, which was created only because of the basic errors in the first regarding the Division of the Missouri. Proposed merge of the two articles under the title "Department of the Missouri."--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

What exactly does Campbell say? It contradicts Groves, who has a lot of details.

It states "The best description of the transportation of the bomb materials from the United States to Tinian is found in a memorandum dated 17 August 1945 from Major J.A. Derry to Admiral W.S. De Lany. Major Derry was an Army Corps of Engineers officer in General Groves' office in Washington. Admiral De Lany is believed to have been in a U.S. Navy position in Washington responsible for liaison with the Manhattan Project. The memorandum is one of two documents replicated at the end of this chapter." (Campbell, p. 38) (RADM Walter Stanley DeLany was Assistant Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief United States Fleet--"COMINCH"--in 1945, and later a vice admiral. He had an interesting career for one so app. obscure--he was Adm Husband Kimmel's operations officer at the time of the Pearl Harbor Attack, and commanded the heavy cruiser New Orleans in 1942) I changed the citation, however, to p. 39 because it states directly: "The Plutonium core (mounted in an insertion capsule) for Fat Man and F31 arrived on Tinian on 28 July 1945 after leaving Kirtland on 26 July 1945. It was the only cargo on a C-54 of the 320th Troop Carrier Squadron, the transportation arm of the 509th. There were actually two C-54s of the 320th that made the trip, with 0ne serving as a backup in case of problems with the primary aircraft." It also reproduces in its entirety the memorandum that annotates precisely the modes of transportation used to convey the various components, specifies what those components were (for instance, one of the items listed on the Indianapolis was a tool set used for bomb assembly), and when they left their points of origin and when they arrived on Tinian. The courier , 2nd Lt. William A. King, also identified the C-54 as a "Green Hornet Line C-54" in his recollection of the transport mission. In any case, the Air Transport Command most assuredly did not transport any nuclear materials. I hoped this clarifies.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. Groves, whom I have found to be reliable, says (p. 306):

I had arranged with Lieutenant General H. L. George, the head of Air Transport, for the final parts. including some U-235, of the Hiroshima bomb to be Down from Albuquerque to Tinian. Because I did not want to risk having the plane disappear in flight with an extremely valuable though small piece of U·235. I asked for two large cargo planes in perfect condition, and the beg possible crews. I told George that the cargo would be almost infinitesimal and that the second plane "'as wanted just in case of need, to tell us ...here the first one crashed-if it did. George had had his orders from Arnold and he simply said, "Whatever you want, you get." A few days later be told me, " just had one of my senior stall officers in here telling me about that operation of yours using two C-54's to carry a few hundred pounds of cargo. The mildest words he used were 'unreasonable' and 'idiotic.' I finally told him that we would continue to furnish whatever the MED asked for and that he didn't have to say any more." I never asked George how much Arnold had told him but he always gave us the utmost in cooperation.

We'll go with your version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I confess I have not read Groves but I do find that somewhat compelling anyway, since Groves talked to George personally, not via memoranda. However, while the 320th TCS wasn't a classified organization, the nature of its missions were, and I'm not sure George was privy to their availability. George's orders after being approached by Groves may have been diverted by Arnold to the unit tasked with that type mission. The one point not mentioned by anyone is the availability of aircraft. The 320th had five C-54s, and the movement from Kirtland on 26 July required five aircraft. A tight squeeze of assets. OTOH, all five left Kirtland at the same time (1510Z 26 July) per Derry, and one could therefore act as a spare for all four of the others, including those carrying the U-235 target rings, not just the one carrying the Fat Man pit. I find several points convincing as to why the 320th would be called upon and not ATC: one, it was their job. Why would you exclude them from arguably their highest priority mission of the war, at a time after all personnel moves had been completed, in favor of ATC planes and crews, who were often disparaged (not always fairly, Groves' condition of the "best crews" and "perfect condition" notwithstanding) as the lower echelon of the AAF? Second, the 320th pioneered the US-Kwajalein transport route to Tinian and flew it more than 50 times transporting personnel and cargo between April and July 1945. ATC didn't. Third, the 320th crews were vetted for security risks when they were 393d personnel--and then continuously by CIC agents between Dec 44 and Jul 45. ATC crews weren't. Then of course there are ops orders and courier reports, which Campbell accessed (2004) and Groves probably did not. I might add that during the war the 320th was the only "troop carrier squadron" carrying C-54s on its inventory of aircraft, all others being C-47s and C-46s. C-54s, otoh, were synonymous with "ATC". Still, the George reference has weight until you get to the last line about how much Arnold did or didn't tell him (about the project). Groves being an engineer wasn't "in the family", and Arnold of course knew exactly what assets the 509th had, so the head of the family may have simply informed George he had it already covered. Good discussion!--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Groves often criticized historians who relied on the documents when so much was deliberately not written down. On the next page he goes on about the actual flights, listing persons persons present and incidents that occurred. I think the two accounts can be reconciled, if we assume that the 320th TCS men and planes originally came from those allocated to the ATC, and that arrangements were made some time in advance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Been trying to get a copy of Campbell for my collection, but no luck so far. It is due for reprinting later in the year though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll have to get a copy of Groves now! The original crews of the 320th came from the six crews of the 393d not selected for Silverplate training, but they were so few for such an intensive project that they must have been augmented at some point by replacements and additions, and those surely came from ATC, as did the C-54s, so your comment about reconciling is probably dead on. Also something else to consider, Derry was Groves' man, and his report says three C-54s transported the U-235, not two. Two including the spare, Derry reports, were allocated to the plutonium core. So Groves recollection may have mixed up the two to some extent. I enjoy conundrums like these and like to dig until I get answers, and many times I find my first impressions were incorrect--so maybe ATC augmented the 320th with the U-235 portion of the shipment. I'll work on a re-edit that, as you say, reconciles both Groves and Campbell with facts as they stated, not assumptions on my part.--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Or, to be more accurate, assumptions on my part! This is the level where it gets both fascinating and frustrating. You'll notice also the bit about the "target" rings. Over at Talk:Little_Boy#Counter_Intuiative_Design there was a discussion about whether the rings were part of the projectile or the target. I have also corrected myself while I was at it; I am also no longer certain that the hollow cylinder was indeed a subcritical mass. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful when amending pages, like Strategic Air Command, the details of which you may not have deeply researched. The above page, written by a USAF ret'd tech sergeant who served for years in SAC, details the ten initial bomb groups. If you check the 58th Air Division page, following User:Bwmoll3's hard work, you will find it is specifically listed as an initial component of SAC, and the 58th Fighter Wing was not even activated until 1952! Please BE MORE CAREFUL. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I never said it wasn't an original unit of SAC. It was included as a GROUP in the list of GROUPS in the SAC article. Now, after your edits, a wing is included in a list of "first ten" groups (although I will concur that my original edit was "inaccurate" by omission--it left out three groups in addition to the 509th, all of which were deactivated on 3-31-46, none of which were among those unspecified groups described in the previous narrative as "quickly deactivated", and in any case a "58th Bomb Group" ws not one of them). The 58th, despite the link you cite, was never a group--check its lineage (at the link you provided), if nothing else. It was a wing in WWII, and a strategic bombardment one at that. Since it was never a group, it could not have been one of the "ten initial bomb GROUPS" as you state above. The 509th was. The 509th was also a component of the 58th Wing. The 509th was not included in the list, so I added it. There were 13 "initial" groups at SAC startup, not 10. Three were inactivated ten days later, leaving 10; NO "58th Bomb Group" in the list. (Maurer, AF COmbat units in WWII, Office of AF History 1983, AFD.100921-044.pdf; Strategic Air Warfare, p. 62, Office of AF History 1988, AFD.100929.052.pdf) There was also one wing, the 58th, to control the operations of the Silverplate atomic bomb B-29s (only the 509th in March 1946 but with the 40th and 449th designated to become one); and one air force, the 15th. All 15 organizations/units were assigned to SAC on 21 March 1946. Again, no "58th Bomb Group" as the SAC article then asserted and I corrected.

I am very familiar with and admiring of Bwmoll3's work. My own is not exactly peanuts in this area, and I too served in the USAF. Since the list referred to in the heading is unsourced, the article itself is flagged for needing sourcing and cleanup, and the author's talk page (app. referenced by you) suggests that he himself is a source, there is a strong suggestion of O.R.and a clear demonstration of why O.R. is not allowed in wiki. (Is there some link between that user and Bwmoll3, and if not, why even bring him into this? His work and the list are apples and oranges.) It is also my understanding that one wiki article cannot be used as reference to support another (let alone one poorly written and unsourced), and the USAF histories on the topic, cited above, contradict that part of his list. (There were two groups at Ft Worth in March and June 1946, the 448th BG and the 468th BG--but, no "58th BG") Finally, what has the 58th Fighter Wing got to do with any of this? My reference was to the 58th Fighter Group of WWII, the only group I know of (and Dr. Maurer Maurer, too, in the history cited above) to use the designation 58th. No one has come up with any source showing that there ever was a "58th Bomb Group" other than this unsourced list. That was my original point, that claiming a "58th Group" existed and linking it to the 58th Wing/Air Division (and omitting the 509th as an original group) was erroneous, for which you have chastised me. It was the Wing that was assigned, not a group that never existed, and not as one of the "first ten groups", which we now know were actually 13. If anyone can document otherwise, other than this "list," I will be happy to apologize for my error. Please HEED YOUR OWN ADVICE. Thanx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, stand down, game over; sorry for using the all caps. What I was aiming to do was produce an orbat for SAC at its formation, with the wings and subordinate groups. I would be quite happy to use the references that you've cited to follow up and correct the 10->13 all across wikipedia. But can you help me to produce the initial orbat so that we get this right? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. You caught me on after all night shift when I had caffeine jitters. The data is available at AFHRA in the Air Force Historical Studies Office index (AFHSO), which is where the two pdf's I cited are located. Again, my apologies. --Reedmalloy (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mr Malloy. I've found this book but have not found the two fact sheets you mention. Thanks though. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The book you cite (Moody) is actually the one I intended to cite above--I told you I was caffeine-jangled! It can be downloaded in its entirety from AFHSO Index. The citation is AFD-100924.009.pdf. The page number (62) was correct--wrote wrong "Strategic Air" in my notes from hasty glance at long list of titles. It's a whole-page table labeled "Assignment and Stationing of B-29 Units, March 1946". There is an error, which Maurer corrected, stating that the 498th inactivated on March 31, 1946, along with the other three (462nd, 467th, and 497th)--the 498th was inactivated on 4 Aug 46, and the assets and personnel stood up in place at MacDill as the 307th. When you read it and the surrounding explanations, you will see that there was a bit more than the somewhat over-simplified explanation currently in the article. Maurer's entries are very informative in providing complete detail and are also linked at the AFSHO page. The LeMay-Johnson interviews at the other work are insightful about the formation of SAC--give them a shot. Sorry for the goof above; hope this helps.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mr Malloy. I hope you'll agree my incremental edits to the page since we talked have improved matters. I'm still a little confused though about the initial thirteen groups. The three you mention, including the 467th, were redesignated, and did not disappear, so the number of groups appears to remain at thirteen. On the List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command article, do you think it might just be better to just list it for deletion? It's a bit of an unreferenced relic from years ago when Wikipedia standards were much lower. Welcome your thoughts Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, my estimate of SAC after March 31, 1946 is: 44, 485, 93, 467, 448, 449 Groups (former Second Air Force area), 73 BW with 498 Group (former Third Air Force area), and 58 BW with 40, 444, and 509 Groups, as well as HQ 15 AF. So 73 BW is also active. Do you agree or have I missed something? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Concur. The 73d Wg, despite being the first B-29 wing in the Marianas in 44-45, was earmarked for the dustbin of history in the accelerated demobilization leading up to creation of the USAF and inactivated on 31 May 46. In American sports parlance, it did not make the cut of those wings whose traditions, lineage, and honors USAF wanted to preserve. Thanx. --Reedmalloy (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. They had some difficult decisions to make in 45-46 on which units to select. On the List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command article, would you support a deletion? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll go with whatever you think best. You have a sound basis for what you're doing and I fully support it. Thanx. --Reedmalloy (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

(od) You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

What a rotten film to end an illustrious career, no wonder William Wellman was so incensed at the cavalier treatment dolled out by Jack L. Warner, a man he personally detested. FWiW, however, I was suitably inspired to rewrite the article as it was a mess, and had no reference sources to back up any of the odd claims made about Wellman. Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC).Reply

Found a much better film by Wellman, Men with Wings. Check it out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC).Reply

I just came across a few books on war films that piqued my interest in a few obscure films, and lo and behold, The Bridges at Toko-ri was already an article but was missing a few things. I will come back to it another time to fill in some gaps, especially the Ted Williams connection?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC).Reply

I'll pick this up tomorrow as I am off to the "flicks." FWiW, Is your friend Isaac a concern? Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC).Reply

Really good edits to this article. Thanks! PumpkinSky talk 09:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For you work on the article about The Hump -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

As you may know, I created stub articles for the Ledo Road and the Hump back in 2004. This barnstar is for your development of the article about the Hump which has taken it to a level far beyond where it was before you started to edit it. PBS (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching the vandalism on List of Mayflower passengers which went undetected for so long. Mugginsx (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're most welcome. It's happened to me on some of the articles I watch. Forest for the trees type deal!--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have a couple that the "folks" can't resist - John Smith (explorer) being the main one. Got some IP protection on it and then they actually went to the Talk page to write the junk there!!!!   Mugginsx (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reed - in this 2010 edit you cited a source that appears to be inaccessible, at least to me and Archive.org. Do you still have access to it? I wonder if this newsletter may have simply moved to a new host (can't find that, if any).

• If you have access, could you create an archive of the (new?) page with http://webcitation.org or http://archive.is and send me that archive URL?
• Did you keep a local copy? If so, could you add the content of the posting as a quote to the article citation #7?

Thanks! (WebCitation offers a browser bookmarklet that makes publicly archiving ephemeral sources a one-click affair, and the relatively new Archive.is makes very high fidelity archives as both HTML and screenshots). --Lexein (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

First, my apologies. The referencing was a little lazy and a little more content might have helped us both. The news letter appears to have been transformed into a blog. The only entry from 2010 continued to now (that I recognize) is this: wings1944. The birth announcement was a followup post to the "UPDATE on Lt. Col. Nicole Malachowski and family". I found this by simply playing with the search engine until something interesting came up, my modus operandi. I'll continue to search and if I come across it, I'll leave a message on your page. I'll also check out the one-click archiving suggestion, since my skills are negligible in that area.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem, WP:Link rot happens. I had seen that blog post, but noticed it lacked details. Thanks for looking out. FYI WebCitation also offers a time-saving tool called Comb to archive all the links on a page. --Lexein (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

archive.is has the one-click bookmarklet as well, but not Comb --Masharabinovich (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey, neat. That's new this month! --Lexein (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just discovered this article, take a look, I've done some work but more can be added to this fascinating account of one man's obsessions. FWiW (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bill: If drugged a la Jim Shannon I would confess, comrade, that Jet Pilot has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Maybe it's just Janet Leigh eye candy, but it amuses me whenever it's on. I caught The Iron Petticoat the other day after TCM touted it all week and it was not only awful, worse than Jet Pilot in every way, it was embarrassing--for Hope. If not for the convoluted timelines of both movies, in release back then and on cable now, one might conclude that Petticoat was a stilted knockoff of the Hughes opus. Article itself is good--it's got just the right undertone of bemusement to match what we know about Hughes now and the criticisms then. (I'd love to see the outtakes of the Siegel-directed scenes.) You do have a dangling thought at the end of the Crowther review, there after footnote 11. In checking the edit history, I noticed that I had contributed some years back--didn't recall a word of it. Anyway, nice job.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

To you and yours, Have a Merry CHRISTMAS (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Bill. The Very Best to you and yours. John (--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC))Reply

That's cool Reed. We follow alot of the same pages and I never even check your edits anymore as I know they are all gold. If you feel that the way to go in this instance is all caps, that's good with me. Just wanted to raise the issue as it seemed odd on first blush and I knew you were adult enough to not fly off the handle if I asked the question through a revert. If you want me to send you a talk next time, let me know - I don't want to be accused (again) of ruining anyone's "perfect record". Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Good job on your edit--you beat me to it! Can you also re-write the first sentence of that section--it's blatant copyvio. Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

We must have been watching at the same time! I'll be happy to do so, but will need a little time. I'm on my day off and my dirty laundry will n ot be put off any longer. Cheers and thanks.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem; if you haven't gotten to it, I'll fix it when I get back from my appointment. (TCM is our favorite channel, except for its creepy owner, lol.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree about TCM. I completed the edit--see what you think and feel free to tweak in any way.--Reedmalloy (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just got back and looked at your revision: it looks real good to me. Thanks! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know that I've nominated 509th Composite Group for GA as part of my effort to overhaul the Manhattan Project articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll do whatever I can to contribute to the process. Thanks.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please cite references for your changes to this page, thanks Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You didn't specify which edits, half of which were an error I made and then self-deleted, so I assume you mean the three about organizational changes. The dates in "mid-1965" and date of redesignation are in the AFHRA squadron fact sheet, while the 8 Jan 66 information about ARRS and 3 ARRG is out of Tilford, p. 75. Search and Rescue in Southeast Asia is available on-line, btw, through AFHSO title index. I will make the citation in the article.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reed - I hesitate to bring this up as I respect your edits more than mine, but your recent changes on the Arnold site seem to insert confusion (at least for me).

Arnold's parents had been made destitute by the Great Depression, and on January 18, 1931, his mother died of a sudden heart attack. Arnold became guilt stricken over missing his parent's 50th wedding anniversary the year before and by the medical depression afflicting his father after her death. To avoid anguishing him further by the constant reminder, she stopped using Anna's pet name for him of "Sunny," which had been habitually Bee's for him as well, and instead began using "Hap," by which he was known the remainder of his life.

Specifically, would the average reader know that Anna is his mom and Bee is his wife? Also, the sentence which had been habitually Bee's for him as well seems pretty clunky. I'll just tee this up and see what you think rather than suggesting a change which may be unwarranted. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

I think you're on to something. I wrote this after work this morning before I went to bed, and I was not only tired but also absorbed about properly documenting it. My original edit called the mother "Gangy", which the source used, and which is explained earlier in the article. But I decided that was not encyclopedic, and now I see that any use of a given name is also inappropriate. I will edit it tonight and address both your concerns. Dik Daso, btw, is the foremost contemporary "expert" on Arnold, gleaning much of his information from correspondence by Arnold to others, particularly Bee. It appears to answer the previously speculative issue of why and when he came to be called "Hap," so I included it, but a little hastily. It was pretty "clunky." :) Thanks for the feedback.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those were some very helpful contributions you made to the article. Tip of the hat! Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I recently finished both MacLean's and Matthews' books, have Red Skies of Montana on DVD, and hope to find time to add citations and minor corrections to the article. Thanx for the encouragement, and a second thanx for being both civil and courteous. (Check out result of my last edit)--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep - another edit nicely done. As to the changes that came just before, I was tempted to revert but thought better of it and just clarified some of what you had. I thought the way you had worded MacLean's work was better. He was a literary person looking for meaning and poetry, well, tragedy really, and though he explored the causes of the tragedy it was always in the context of a literary work, so the wording you had was preferred in my opinion, but hardly worth getting people sideways over. Anyways, liked what you added. Cheers. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I caught the link you added to the 456th Troop Carrier Group (oops that would be the 456th Bombardment Group) for Operational Training Unit. I have just reverted your edit, though. The problem is with the AAF Training Command article itself, though, not the link (which I approve of -- theoretically -- and believe there is more room for something like that elsewhere). I have proposed deleting the section you linked to at Talk:Army Air Forces Training Command on the basis of inaccuracy. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with that and defer to your expertise. I only linked it originally on the basis that "it was there." My own understanding on OTU parent groups comes from Craven and Cate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of 509th Composite Group to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,327 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any questions TFA-related or problems, please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 17:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was looking through a recent edit on History of the United States Air Force and I saw this sentence:

Neither Arnold nor General Carl Spaatz wanted to use the atomic bomb, but were ordered by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and President Harry Truman to use the new weapon against Japan during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

I'm not a USAF history expert, but I've never heard that both Arnold and Spaatz disagreed with the use of The Bomb so I flagged it. Is the above common knowledge and I've just never heard it? I don't mind deleting the tag, just looking for corroboration. Thanks Ckruschke (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

It rings a vague bell, in that I think he believed the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary to prevent an Allied invasion of Japan because the firebombing of its cities and the submarine blockade of its shipping would force its surrender anyway. The firebombing shows it was not a moral issue with him as it was with Hansell, whom he fired for opposing firebombing, and the use of B-29s to deliver the atomic bomb validated strategic bombing (and a separate USAF) in his mind, so I'm not sure. I'll definitely look into it myself with my many sources on Arnold, and you might want to check in with Hawkeye7, who has worked on a wide spectrum of Manhattan Project articles and may have more insight.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Arnold was completely supportive of Manhattan and Silverplate from the beginning, and played an important part in getting the B-29 modified to deliver it. Without his support the bombs would almost certainly have been delivered by a Lancaster. Spaatz is more controversial. He asked for and received written orders for the bombings, which some historians have seen as an attempt to evade personal responsibility. The President never issued any orders. The chain of command was similar to most WWII operations. The decision was formally made by the Combined Policy Committee and signed by Field Marshal Wilson in June 1945. An order then went out to Spaatz from General Handy as acting Chief of Staff of the Army on 25 July. This was followed by an operation order from Spaatz to Tibbets on 3 August. I'll have a look through my books for some more on Spaatz and Arnold's attitudes in August 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I knew you'd have the answer. :) --Reedmalloy (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reed - I think I'll just flag the sentence for now so I don't forget to come back to it. Thanks for running this to ground! Ckruschke (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

I've had a look through the books here. Most of the argument centres around the fact that Arnold, Spaatz and LeMay believed that conventional bombing was enough to force Japan to surrender. They could not argue this publicly, or even within the Army, because the USAAF was still part of the Army, and Chief of Staff Marshall was adamant about the necessity for an invasion of Japan. But this falls short of opposing the aromic bombing. Spaatz said that he had no qualms because he had been given written ordrs (which he requested) from his superiors. It is worth noting that Arnold argued with Stimson at some length over the latter's refusal to allow Kyoto to be atomic bombed. See Schaffer, Wings of Judgment, pp. 142-155, Alperovitz, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb, pp. 334-350. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion is the sentence should just be deleted rather than trying to reword a sentence that clearly shouldn't have been there in the first place. What do you think? Ckruschke (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Support.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll make that happen. If someone vocally disagrees, we can copy this into a Talk thread and go from there. Ckruschke (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Re your change to the 327th Aircraft Sustainment Wing based on the belief that technically the AAF was only in the United States. This is not accurate. Both Air Transport Command and Army Airways Communications System had overseas units and reported to Hq, AAF not to the theater command. AACS converted to the AAF Base Unit system at the wing level and above in the spring of 1944 (but was not assigned its own block of numbers until July 1945), but ATC overseas units did not convert until later in the year. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanx. in fact they converted on 1 August 1944.--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea This is the article I created a week ago and is currently doing the work there. Right now, I'm a bit stuck of what direction should I take. I need some help. Thanks. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Be glad to offer my two cents'. Give me a day or two to review it though.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

See discussion below. You need a talk page of your own where discussions of this sort can be arranged and draw in a wider range of opinion and therefore consensus. Until then, I think I will table your request with regrets.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uhh, I do have a talk page. You can come to my talk page and discuss the issues there? What are you talking about? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

So I was told, so my apologies. With no user page, in my ignorance I thought you did not have one. As for "discuss issues", I had flagged one of your edits at History of the United States Air Force and asked that you discuss your edits on its talk page to foster consensus and avoid any appearance of POV/agenda-driven edits. Having to revert edits or delete part of them because they appear to be nonNPOV or are undocumented can be stressful for fellow editors if it has to be done repeatedly. A lot of that can be avoided by talking it out on an article's talk page.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I already added links to the History of the United States Air Force then.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you help me in the "Bombing of North Korea" please? Thanks.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have a newly-created editor making changes on History of the United States Air Force. You might want to take a look (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States_Air_Force&action=history). I've reverted his non-NPOV tone in the past so am holding back judgement rather than be accused of having a vendetta. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

I don't know if you noticed or not, but he also has asked me to review an article on USAF bombing of North Korea. I was a bit leery (editors without talk pages too conveniently avoid discussion) and am even moreso now, and I see now where our earlier discussion re Spaatz and Arnold originated. To be fair, the information on the timing of the attack being related to Potsdam may be generally accurate. I don't know but seems plausible on the face of it. I hate to toss this is into Hawkeye7's lap again, but this entire topic is within his niche. I will flag the latest for source documentation and ask that the editor bring the issues to the article talk page for a reasonable discussion. Not having a talk page makes that more difficult, of course.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree with your thoughts. Text "could" be ok, but I generally tend to distrust bald-faced comments about what precipitated the beginning/ending of wars as being too simplistic (even beyond not trusting the editor's POV). My suggestion is to also put something on his Talk page (he does have one and it has ample content on it - not that he looks at it) you can say "you tried" if he comes back with the "no one told me" argument. Most numbered anon editors never look at their Talk pages, which are filled with "stop doing this" posts, but he may be receptive. Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

And to you, Bill.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reed - You might want to check out a recent thread on the USAF page. Someone has suggested a rewrite, I think, of the culture section and honestly I agree as it appears to suck (alot of misc bullets strung together). Thought you may be interested as you are quite involved with these type pages. Ckruschke (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

As the original creator of this article, and the largest contributor, I was wondering if you'd consent to be co-nominator at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that was a long time ago. I'd be honored to have my username up with yours any time.--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Silverplate has passed FAC! Would you be up to co-nominating Paul Tibbets? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, fantastic and back at you! Handshake and concurrence re: Tibbets. Call on me for any work you need done.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since Malloy was the senior partner, shouldn't he have gotten top billing in your username? I think Martin Milner should get a better agent! Best, BMK (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

:-) (He was the better actor, too.) --Reedmalloy (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is to inform you that 509th Composite Group, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 17 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

US Air Force
Thank you, inclusionist WikiFairy, for quality articles such as 509th Composite Group and Interception of the Rex, for touching (325) articles tirelessly, alone, in collaboration and overhauling, for "Without music, we are drones." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1065 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for today's Silverplate! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1065 of Precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

To you and yours

 

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

And to you, Bill. Best wishes.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm writing a biography of pioneer aviator Eugene Ely. In an Afterword, I'm summarizing the post-1911 lives of other aviators whose lives intersected his. Your Wikipedia article on Beck is outstanding. Should I cite to it, or have you published something more "permanent"? Jzobel (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the star and the kind words. I have been published exactly once, and that fiction, years (make that decades) ago. He is just one pf many Signal Corps aviators whose careers fascinated me, but I found some special impetus to round out as complete and balanced a story of Paul Beck as possible after exchanging correspondence with Dan Demers, whose article is credited in the sources. Beck receives "short shrift" from many writers because he was unquestioningly ambitious, as if that was some Aristotelian flaw. He was also bright, charismatic and, in the end, dedicated to the Air Service. There is also no evidence that I could find, and I looked hard, that he was anything other than an honorable man. All that said, I would wish you cite to the article. My views on Wiki are plain on my user page regarding the incredible amounts of worthless garbage tolerated, but every decent article cited adds to the reputation of it as also something more than a compendium of People Magazine articles regarding things that will be forgotten in five years. Best wishes for your biography.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see your editing work on this article. Please don't forget to provide citations for your edits, especially any major new chunks of prose not covered by other existing citations. Thanks for your work. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've already added a source and cited to it for new additions. I worked considerably on the Air Corps part of this article a number of years ago and have it on my watch list. A recent edit drew my attention back to it. I rearranged some of the existing information which works better in its new locations (such as the references to GHQ Air Force). As I get time, I will go back and document the information already there without attribution, at least for the Air Corps parts. Thanks for your interest, however.--Reedmalloy (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, I'm taking a break from the rewrites, a little close to burning out on this particular article. I have been trying to find the original source material used for the scandal sections, as it seems to be professionally written and perhaps cut and pasted. Thus far no luck. For that reason I have deleted the name of the Ludington official who allegedly kick-started the investigation. No William Briggs to be found in the sources I've checked. I have tried to show why United became such a target for Black and Farley, and fed a little balance into the scandal investigation to illuminate motives and aims of both partisan sides. Brown has many defenders about his motives and detractors about his methods, and I'm looking for a succinct way to express that without taking sides.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just aheads up. Were you aware that if you doing extensive editing on an article that you can add an {{In use}} tag to the article (and save it), then continue working for as long as you wish and do occasional saves rather than saving your work every few minutes. Then remove it when you have completed your work. Other users may try to do a small quick edit if they see the tag and won't get caught out as I did once when we were both editing it. You mentioned that you thought some of the article was a cut and paste. That would not be allowed unless it was a short quote or from some public domain, or other freely licenced, text. Obviously, as you mention, you must take a WP:NPOV when talking about any controversies. Very nice work though I don't know the topic well enough to comment further. ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I was not aware of it. I appreciate the tip and will give it a try. As you can see, my "close to burnout" only lasted as long as good nap. :-)--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am currently reading Douglas Waller's biography and enjoying it. I just lost my high school roommate whose grandfather was Billy Mitchell. Hoppyh (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the entry for George C. Weir. It seems notable enough to me, but it's been nominated for deletion and I would welcome your input. Thanks.--YHoshua (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  Reply

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

 

An article that you have been involved in editing—822d Tactical Missile Squadron—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply