Open main menu

I'll reply to your message here.

Contents

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)

JASCOEdit

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)

SeabeeEdit

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 24.187.126.200 (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

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  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.

  Miscellaneous

  • 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.

  Arbitration

  • 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 wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org 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.

  Miscellaneous


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 F16.net 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)


Hi Rupert

1. I think I figured out some aspects of the artillery colour patch system. I think it was individuals who joined the AIF in WW2 artillery units who wore the grey trim, while members of the same units who remained in the militia did not wear the trim. I think this is why I see photos of uniforms and relics with and without the AIF grey trim. So the same unit could have members with and without the grey trim at the same time. This was not the case in the infantry, where a unit became AIF when 65% of the members transferred, but in most cases the unit colour patch remained the same, or, if the grey trim was adopted (eg. 61st Bn) then everyone wore it.

I love how the colour patches reflect the history like that.

2. In WW2 the artillery units were split up and sent everywhere, which was why I was having trouble deciphering who was who and what patch they owned. So an AA battery in Darwin and a field battery in Port Moresby could belong to the same brigade and have the same colour patch. A lot of the references on the internet (especially plaques and other memorials) are about batteries and regiments, because it was the batteries and regiments defending certain localities that the associations and the public were honouring. They did not identify the brigades on the plaques, which can become confusing.

The same happened in WW1 to a certain extent, but not as complicated because everyone on a gun was, after all, on the Somme and relatively proximate (both in terms of location and target acquisition). So I think I have sorted artillery for WW1.

I'm still sorting artillery for WW2, but I am looking for brigades, and trying to treat batteries and regiments as the clue to the brigades.

In this sense, artillery patches (brigades) only identified to one level higher than infantry patches (battalion). As far as i can tell, therefore, different regiments had the same patches (eg. the 2/8th Field Regiment and the 13th Field Regiment).

That's the basis on which I'm now working on artillery.


3. The web site http://colourpatch.com.au/

This is a commercial web site that sells to military members and units. I assume it is therefore reliable.

Any thoughts? Are their commercial catalogues complete, do you think? Is there a place to look up whether any units are redundant (as for 4th Combat Engineers, East Ringwood)? (I presume they're accurate because they are photos and they sell to members.)

I know that people who have worked on this page before me have used this web site. And of course we have no idea who looks at these web pages and whether those people are able to make changes, but nobody has complained to my knowledge about the modern RAE patches I have put up. I have no way to check any official sources of this kind of information.

Cheers Greg GJW (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gjw9999: G'day, Greg, re the website -- many RSMs source current UCPs for their units through them (and they have been granted authorisation to sell these products by the ADF), so it is probably pretty accurate, although where possible I'd suggest verifying the information through other sources also. For instance, Philip Blackwell's Australian Army Unit Colour Patches 1987-20008 is a pretty good source for some of the more recent UCPs. Many of your engineer patches are in that work, so can be confirmed that way. Some aren't, though, due to some of the more recent changes in the corps. The Army website also maintains the Unit Colour Patch register here: [3], which is probably your best bet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

R Thank you, that's great to see the official list, I will amend what I've done. G GJW (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Rupert I have added some photos to 'unit colour patch'.

Some were already in Wikimedia Commons ('Jack' Axford MM VC for 16th Bn 1st AIF, and Reg Saunders MBE with Tom Derrick VC DCM for 2/7th and 2/48th).

But George V investing John Monash was not. Could you please check the copyright to help ensure the King and the General won't be deleted (and I won't be blocked)?

I added the phrase {{PD-AustraliaGov}} to the copyright field and that seemed to do the trick.


Image details: url=http://test.awm.gov.au/collection/C1005665?image=1 AWM Accession number A03316

The url is a bit odd but it's the only one I can find.

Thank you

Cheers Greg GMT + 10 hours GJW (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC) GJW (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC) GJW (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gjw9999: G'day, Greg, I have tweaked the Monash image with the following edit: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Rupert

Do you know anything abut whether we can use photos from the Australians at War Film Archive?

I have cited the following: http://australiansatwarfilmarchive.unsw.edu.au/archive/206-edward-asquith#

Click on the photo from the war with the slouch hat.

where Pte Asquith is wearing the New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company patch, one which someone chatting with you previously had wanted put on this page.

The photo would go nicely with the patch .

Thank you GJW (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC) GJW (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gjw9999: G'day, without knowing where the photo was first published, or who took it (i.e is it an official Army photo?) uploading it may be a little iffy. I'd suggest erring on the side of caution with that one, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll leave it as just the link, then GJW (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

SeabeeEdit

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). https://seabeemagazine.navylive.dodlive.mil/2018/07/15/this-week-in-seabee-history-july-15-july-21/ 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: [5]. Commons deletion policy requires that if anyone objects to speedy deletion that the tagging editor should convert it to a regular deletion request, per: [6]. 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

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • 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)

In appreciationEdit

  You are a Ray of Sunshine!
It says here "The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person who, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world and that you can relax. May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day." So here you go. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Seconded! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

  Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 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) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Arome GlobalEdit

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Peter BadcoeEdit

G'day AR, I've finished expanding the Badcoe article with material from some books on the AATTV and all the usual texts on VC recipients, and have nominated it for GAN. I'd appreciate it if you had the time to review, as I know you have an interest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, sure I will take a look. Will try to get to it tomorrow -- just a heads up, though, I have to go interstate again mid next week for a conference in Canberra, so the review may be interrupted throughout the week, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019,Edit

Hi, I have noticed that an editor, Gaurang kapoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaurang_kapoor) Is inserting spam link. As he has done with Nusrat Jahan and Mimi Chakraborty. I have already reverted those. If you check his talk page, you'll find that he has been already warned for promoting his own website or something else. Though, he didn't refrain from that. I don't think he has no intention in contributing to wikipedia but more interested in promoting some websites contained improper images. Thanks. (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day, not all of their edits appear to be spam, for instance [7] and they are spaced over a considerable period of time, so a quick solution isn't imperative, in my opinion. Additionally, the warnings on their talk page have been escalated quite quickly jumping several levels, rather than going through the usual level 1 to 4 warnings. As such. I'd suggest you try a more personal approach, with an original comment on their talk page explaining why you think the links are spam and asking them to refrain (rather than a templated warning). If they then continue then a post to WP:ANI would be best as it will allow a considered response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Landing at Jacquinot BayEdit

Thanks for catching that. That's one of the items I check for when using that script, for precisely this reason. Somehow I missed that the dash was in a file name. Onel5969 TT me 12:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, easy mistake. I'm sure I've done something similar in the past. Thanks for fixing all the Cape Gloucester dabs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

TravisEdit

Hi AR, trust you are well. I'm beginning to look at Richard Travis with a view to taking it to A-Class review. Are still happy to be involved as a co-nominator? Also, the article refers to two mentions in dispatches - however in Byrne's history of the Otago Regiment (a reference for the article), Travis is not listed in the appendix as a MID. All my books are in storage at the moment pending a house move that will be completed in a couple of weeks time so can't check those at the moment. I may get to the library over that time and will try and look at a couple of different resources on military awards for NZEF soldiers but checking Gasson's 1966 encyclopedia entry for Travis, there is a reference to him being mentioned in "Routine orders". This is different to a MID, isn't it? I wonder if these routine orders have been confused for MIDs? I've checked his military file. It is hard to read but I don't see any MIDs there. Any thoughts? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Zawed: G'day, yes, happy to help where I can although work has me pretty busy at the moment -- travelling a bit ad much longer hours than I'd like, so I haven't been doing much involved editing of late. Regarding the MIDs, interesting question -- the Auckland Museum mentions two MIDs [8] as does the Commonwealth War Graves Commission [9]. But neither provide dates, unfortunately. The service record is very hard to read, but seems to mention some incidents from July 1916 that might have led to Travis being mentioned in despatches, including early patrol work and then going out into no mans land to search for wounded raiders and recovering equipment. These might be the MIDs. Have you tried searching the London Gazette for July 1916? I wonder also if it might be in Gasson's book. Unfortunately, no libraries near me seem to hold it, though: [10]. I note that the images of Travis' War Medal and Croix de Guerre (on the Auckland War Museum site: [11]) both have the leaf or palm device which indicates a mention in despatches. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zawed: G'day, I wonder if this image would be useable for the article: [12]? I believe the same painter produced the work currently in the Samuel Forsyth. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Finally, I wonder if there is anything that could be said in terms of legacy, etc. I found a couple of mentions, but not much really. For instance, the Dick Travis VC Memorial Shoot at the Karori Rifle Club: [13] and Travis Street, Napier: [14]. These probably aren't the best in terms of sourcing, so if I get a chance next week, I will try to look up the subject on ProQuest and see what comes up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good catch with the oak leaf on the medal ribbons. I will review the LG and I have a book, albeit in storage, that lists all awards to NZEF in WWI. The library has a copy of it as well. That may point me to a specific date for the LG if I can't find it otherwise. Yes, I was looking to work up a legacy section as I came across an article to do with a 100 year commemoration. I was also wanting to include that portrait. Zawed (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "AustralianRupert".