Open main menu

I'll reply to your message here.


The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviewing efforts in 2018, AR!Edit

  The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
For your reviews of 109 Military history articles in 2018, I hereby award you the Premium Reviewer Barnstar. We wouldn't have the amazing throughput we have as a project, if it wasn't for you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


AustralianRupertMany thanks for your edit and image to Joint Assault Signal Company got any more?Oldperson (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: G'day, no worries. Unfortunately, I haven't located any more yet as I am a bit busy at the moment (still finalising moving house), but if you take a look at these sources, you might have more luck than me: [1] All of the USMC sources written by service personnel in the course of their duties are usually in the public domain, so images found in those sources can be uploaded with the PD-USMC licence on Commons. If you get stuck with licencing, or formatting the upload, please let me know. Happy to help if I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
AustralianRupertThanks. Looks like we have something in common. I'm also in the process of moving.
Spouse is at our other home, while I am setting things up here. We have owned this place for 18 years but unable to live in it as spouse was employed elsewhere's, now it is time to come home, Fun trying to fit contents of two homes into one. (This house was rented part time till lately). I am editing an article for the Pig War something I know a little about. I have three books on the subject, but they are in boxes in the garage and I would have to dig through them.I might if I feel up to it.I've downloaded some images from the National Park Service, United States, which per WP commons means that they are copyright free.I will upload them on the morrowOldperson (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Australian Better FamiliesEdit

What's with shortening the semi-protection here to three days? The party has been trying to force their spin on the article for at least a month: trying to get them to do something other than insistently revert to try to get their way through brute force in a week would be challenging enough, but there's no chance of breaking that habit in three days. The reduction has basically ensured that they'll start again in three days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

G'day, it was an error on my part, sorry. Both Ymblanter and I were looking at the article at the same time. Ymb protected it a couple of seconds before I hit the save button, and before my browser refreshed. When I hit save I didn't get an edit conflict message, which the software usually produces. I am not sure why I didn't get that message, but have corrected the error now I hope. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


I missed your comment on paragraphs. Thank you for the observation. I did not set out to write that article. My edits were added as I gathered the information. From the footnotes you will see it did not all come from a single source and I just added and added. Very poor approach to doing an article but, as I said it was not my intent to write the entire thing. Thank you very much for all the input.

I do have a question. Another editor from the military project left me a message that they were surprised that my ID has not been tagged COI any and all edits I might make regarding the military. Is that something that is done regardless of a neutral POV?Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

G'day, I would say it is because of your username, which could be taken to imply that you are currently serving in Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133. If you are editing as part of your duties at that unit, it would be best for you to self declare a COI on your user page, potentially using something like this template: Template:UserboxCOI. If you are simply editing as a hobby, and not as part of your duties, it might be best to just change your username so that people don't jump to this conclusion. (To do so, this page provides some advice: Wikipedia:Changing username). You would, of course, though still need to be mindful to continue to make sure you are maintaining a neutral point of view, but that obviously applies to everyone here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. What you pointed out is an issue I have with many of the other editors I have encountered. Many seem to be very judgmental. They bring very biased POVs in my opinion. While they are knowledgeable about the Rules, MOS, POV, seem they seem to have a superficial understanding of what they have read. MCB has two meanings in the U.S military that I know, both are posted in the Wikipedia: Marine Corps Base and Mobile Construction Battalion. The first is still in use while the later was used from 1948 to 1968. NMCB is the current abbreviation. While the "N" gets dropped by many, MCB is not used by the Navy. It irks me to no end to deal with people that jump to conclusions while they lack the information to make the judgement they have come to or form the opinion they hold.

As to my further contributions, I expect there will be very few. The only reason I did what I did was that the posted material was lacking or incorrect. I have posted enough footnotes for most of it to stand. I would do more about the UDTs, but I think that article has POV issues and needs a near complete rewrite. I will pass.

G'day to you and thanks again.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

G'day, I can understand that, although I am sorry to hear it. I have slowly been reducing my own article contributions over the past year or so for some of these same reasons (and several others) and have considered ceasing altogether many times. There are some great aspects to Wikipedia, and some not so great. Anyway, I do hope to see you around in the future, but if not I wish you all the best for your offline endeavours and would like to thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia so far. The articles you've worked on are significantly better now due to your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Otago RegimentEdit

Hi, the Otago Infantry Regiment has existed on and off since World War I under a few names and often divided between other forces. There is a page covering World War I Otago Infantry Regiment and a page covering about 1948-2012 Otago and Southland Regiment. Should I be trying to make this all one page or should they be treated separately? It is likely that WWI will be their only significant engagements as a Regiment (in WWII the Otago’s seems to be split between at least a few battalions). What is considered tidy or correct on the Military Project or in your view. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)).

G'day, Dushan, nice work on the article so far. Re your question: I think that if the Otago Regiment merged with the Southland Regiment, I could see that it would make sense to have three separate articles: Otago Regiment (or Otago Infantry Regiment if that was it's proper name), which would deal with all things up to 1948 including World War I, inter war years and World War II, Southland Regiment which would detail all things relating to that regiment prior to the merge, and then Otago and Southland Regiment for the amalgamated unit post 1948, albeit with a very brief summary of the previous history of the two separate regiments to tie it together. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanksEdit

...for your comments at the Mary Bell (aviator) ACR -- I think I've actioned all of them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Ian. Thanks for getting back to me. Great work on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yoo HooEdit

Natale Olivieri started bottling carbonated fruit drinks in the mid-1920s. However, when he attempted to bottle a chocolate drink, he found that it would soon spoil. Observing his wife canning fruits and vegetables, he asked her to use the same heat processing techniques with his chocolate drink. It worked! He began bottling the pasteurized chocolate drink named Yoo-Hoo at 133 Farnham Avenue in 1928.” Excerpt from Images of America: Garfield by Howard D. Lanza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to add that to the article, please discuss your addition on the article's talk page. You can then see if there is consensus for your addition. Continuing to post this information in this manner, however, is not constructive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's DayEdit

Happy Valentine's Day Rupert. I hope you had a great Valentine's Day with your loved one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

JF-17 thunderEdit

The opreational history of jf 17 is being changed again and again by some one and the current history refers to only referenes from indian news papers and reports about the recent engagments on 27 feb. Also you can check for any authenticity of claims. You need to edit it tjhats false news Mehtab00 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mehtab00: The article is currently protected until 21 March to stop edit warring and promote discussion. I suggest you raise any concerns you have about the references on the article's talk page at this time (which is not protected, and which you can currently edit). That will allow those interested in the article to reach some consensus and determine whether to proceed with your suggested change/s. Please make sure your arguments are nested within policy (for instance WP:RS and WP:NPOV). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Kokoda TrackEdit

Hi Rupert

Someone is trying to say that the 39th Battalion and the 21st Brigade were not outnumbered on the track. I deleted a general comment in the intro to that effect but left the comments down below. It feels as if they're referencing themselves, maybe a book or a thesis? Anyway, the party does not really give a timeline and to make a general claim to that effect is nonsense, certainly up until the time that the 21st Bde was reinforced. how do we keep an eye on that? GJW (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gjw9999: G'day, are you referring to this edit: [2], by Hawkeye? If so, I would advise not removing information like that without discussing it on the talk page first to allow others to provide an opinion and establish consensus for or against the change per WP:CONSENSUS. The lead summarises the article, and that information is in fact referenced in the body. From what I have seen, the weight of most recent work does in fact seem to indicate that the idea that the Australians were outnumbered on the track is not necessarily accurate, or where they were outnumbered, it apparently wasn't by as much once thought. I don't have the book at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that Peter Williams' The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality provides quite a bit about various strength states for comparison. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi AR and Gjw9999, you will note that AR, Hawkeye and I have worked togeather on the campaign series. I do have the book atm. WRT the statement in the lead, please see Significance of the campaign and ref 425 (Williams, 2012, p. 233).

The heart of the Kokoda myth is that the Australians were defeated an the Kokoda Track from July to September 1942 because they were greatly outnumbered. Japanese records show that this is untrue. The Papuans and Australians by one and a half to one up to first Kokoda. At Second Kokoda and Deniki they were slightly outnumbered, and at Isurava there was one Australian for each Japanese engaged. During the retreat from Eora to Efogi the Japanese superiority was at its highest, at close to two to one for five days from 1 September. At Efogi, the two sides were about equal strength, and at the last Australian defeat at Ioribawa it was the Australians who outnumbered the Japanese almost two to one.

The quote is from Williams' concluding chapter. The details regarding the individual battles are discussed in detail in the body of the work. Williams' analysis considers those troops engaged at each battle, not the total strengths of each command along the track. With Horii's force having an effective strength of about 6,000 (1 Regt and one depleated Regt) this may still give the impression of Japanese numerical superiority but this force was not committed en masse. In general, the advance was made by regiment, and sometimes, even smaller forces, so that for example, the initial attack on Kokoda was made by about 200, while subsequently (after both forces had been reinforced) it was made by about 600. I hope that this gives some context. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi All I'm happy to leave it to you. Well done on the book.

GJW (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Unit colour patchEdit

I'd like your opinion Rupert on how much I should be putting in citations other than the ones that are already there, for "Unit colour patch"? I hope you like what I've done to 'unit colour patch', in the sense that I hope it makes sense or seems useful to someone else. It is very hard to visually display all of the relationships between battalions, brigades and divisions during WW2, so I did not try yet, although I'm thinking of a way. I think the page could be a reference spot for looking up the changes in the formations in a way that "Digger History" probably once did, except that the "Digger History" web site seems to be a bit broken nowadays. It seems to be easier now to navigate "Digger History" from an external search engine. gjw9999

GJW (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gjw9999: G'day, its looking quite good, thank you. The easiest rule of thumb is at least one citation at the end of each paragraph, or internal list, or each note. For instance, I would suggest adding a citation to notes such as this "The 6th Division never became a battle formation, but was instead disbanded to provide reinforcements to other Divisions", and "2nd Battalion of the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade was a British battalion " (for example). They should also be added to the end of paragraphs such as those in the CMF and 2nd AIF sections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll work on those citations Thank you, Greg GJW (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


G'day to you mate. I am back with a new problem that I completely do not understand. I posted a photo to Wikicommons from the Seabee Magazine that has a source tag right on it (Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy Seabee Museum). File:ACB 2- Beirut.jpg (I left the brackets off so it would not take up your talk page) An editor in the UK as tagged it for quick deletion for copyright violation. It is a U.S. military photo, in U.S. Government archives published in a U.S. Government publication. It is in the public domain. Please explain how I got this wrong.Mcb133aco (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: G'day, I don't think the file meets the criteria for speedy deletion as it has a seemingly valid licence. The Commons speedy deletion criteria for copyright violations requires there to be "no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work". I don't think that exists with that file, unless I am missing something. It would be better if there is doubt about the licence to follow the regular deletion process to allow a proper debate, rather than requesting speedy deletion: [3]. Commons deletion policy requires that if anyone objects to speedy deletion that the tagging editor should convert it to a regular deletion request, per: [4]. As such, have you tried talking to the tagging editor to explain why you believe their reasoning is incorrect, and explaining that you object to speedy deletion? I note that you've written something on your talk page on Commons, but I don't know if the tagging editor will have seen this. That said, I also note you are using some strong language there, which may derail your argument. I understand this can be frustrating, but it is best to try to remain calm and assume good faith, otherwise your argument (no matter whether you are correct or not) can be undermined. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mcb133aco: Correction to my last, I believe that if you object to the speedy deletion, you can do so by converting the speedy deletion on the file description page to a regular deletion request. This will allow you to put your case forward in a more formal setting. (This is set out in the deletion template that the tagging editor put on your talk page: "If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request." Also, on the file itself, it states: "Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request and remove this template.") So I think that is your way forward. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you as always. As you no doubt have seen I am less gracious than you. Have done as you said and opened a deletion discussion page and remove my POV comments per your prompting. I have completed my effort on the Seabee article. After all this time I realized I had gone about it completely wrong. I should have rewritten the article from the get go instead of the editing as-you-go that I did. Added a couple of lines to the leade that tie the it together the way it ought to be. Thank you again. Mcb133aco (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

" Another thank you for posting your comments regarding the ACB 2 image." Mcb133aco (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

New request for you. Amphibious Construction Battalion "One" has no images in Wikicommons. However, there are numerous images for Amphibious Construction Battalion "1". The commons link: {Commons category} will not link to those images to the actual article. Do you know how to get around the issue: One vs 1? thank you Mcb133aco (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

G'day, I've added it for you now. Just needs to be "piped" due to the title not matching exactly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU again.Mcb133aco (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

  Technical news



  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Seabee againEdit

I just had an editor rollback edits to the Seabee article without stating why. I have asked them why but, when you have a moment would you give it a look and give me your thoughts what I did wrong now. ThanksMcb133aco (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) I received a reply that the other editor made a "mistake". Sorry to have troubled you but, I could not see my error.have a great day.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: Sorry for the late reply -- I had to go away for work for awhile. Glad it was sorted. AustralianRupert (talk)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019Edit

Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "AustralianRupert".