The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019Edit
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
|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)|
- @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:  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, 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)
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)