User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 6

Z Special Unit

AustralianRupert,

When does the Z Special Unit talkpage get archived? Doesn't seem to have any set period to auto archive. Adamdaley (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, the page is not currently auto archived. IMO, auto archiving is not ideal for such pages as it results in numerous archives being created with only single threads. As such, I have set it up for manual archiving. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Hamel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help

Please see WP:Help desk#AATTV, I see you've helped the editor on the same article a while ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Hamel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Brigade's position, with the 15th on its left,{{sfn|Laffin|1999|p=78}} and the [[14th Battalion (Australia|14th]] in reserve. Taking heavy fire from the edge of the wood and the northern part of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2/3rd Battalion (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to the 19th Brigade for its assault on Derna, and remained there after its capture on 30 January.{{sfn|Australian War Memorial ||} Prime Minister [[Robert Menzies]] broke his journey from

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessments

Battle of Aubers Ridge I've made a start on adding citations where I have sources, because I can do this and resist the temptation to rewrite the article. Can I alter the "Referencing and citation: criterion not met" section and remove the banner or does someone else have to look at it? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, based on experience it seems generally acceptable to rate something as C class, but for B class it is best to list at WP:MHA. Nevertheless, I have updated it for you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, the ones I've done so far have been short of a B on the citations criterion so I will put them on the list as suggested. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment against b class criteria

AustralianRupert,

Could you please assess the following articles against the B-class criteria:

135th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment
136th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment

It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I have done this for you now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added more references to the 135th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment article. I'm hoping this will fix the referencing problems for B class assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I've updated those pages now. I'd actually meant to type "B2=n" (coverage), but now that I look at them again, the coverage is probably ok given the short service histories. Sorry for mucking that up. Have a good day. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli GA co-nom

Gday. I'm thinking of nominating Gallipoli Campaign for a GA review. Are you interested in a co-nom? Anotherclown (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, mate, that's fine, if you are keen. I've sent most of the books I used back to the library, though, but I will try to help out if possible. Have all the points from the peer review been addressed? Sorry, I didn't really follow that up after I got back. A word of warning, though, next week will be very busy for me at work, so I probably won't be very active online. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries - will give it a shot! Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Great work getting this to GA. Something for your efforts:

		The World War Barnstar
		For your work improving Gallipoli Campaign. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks for your work on this one, too. It needed a lot of work and couldn't have been achieved without everyone's efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 33rd Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bailleul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fricourt et al.

OzR and AC, can I have an opinion on the structure of the "Other Engagements" for the Somme battle? If I use the same one as I did for Fricourt, I'll be duplicating most of the information in the Background and Prelude sections (I've already overlapped a lot that's in the First day of the Somme page). Can you suggest pages I can look, at to decide the level of detail I should leave in please?Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, you might look at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter series of articles. Although they are from a different war, I think they might be similar in nature in terms of a wider battle with smaller "sub"-battles. Personally, I wouldn't worry about overlapping too much, as ultimately each article should be able to stand on its own. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help. I had a look at the policy on levels of detail, when pondering the position of the First Day page and decided to do it as a mini version of the main Somme page, hence all the links to the engagements listed in the infobox for 1 July. I'm reluctant to copy and paste the background and prelude sections or paraphrase them, since that's much the same thing and have been wondering about just a brief note under each heading (or a combined heading) and a back link to the first day page. I've got plenty of time though. I'm going to start on Gommecourt after I've finished the prelude for tFDotS..Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Backslash

Hi, I know the edit was made really long ago (Nov 2010) but, while you were editing 14th Battalion (Australia), you added a backslash in this edit (just search for a backslash "\"). It is just a typo, right? Squc (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, good spot. Yes, that was a typo. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC Reviews

G'day AR, you have me down for three, I did four per this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day. I've updated this. Should hopefully be correct now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey both, three is actually correct - the last review on Peacemaker's list wasn't archived until July, so it won't make the April-June list. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was when I did the review, not when it was archived. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies all round, I should have noticed this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

Thank you for your help in correcting my error when applying for an A Class review. It's much appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with the review and welcome to the Milhist project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Badcoe's VC

Got any idea where it is? The literature says it was going to spend some time in Adelaide, then go on tour, and then end up in the AWM VC gallery. Well, "As Far As I Know" (AFAIK), it still hasn't made it to the AWM yet ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've spent a bit of time trolling through Proquest for newspaper articles and haven't found anything yet. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15th Battalion (Australia)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article 15th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What rubbish... damn bot. Of course I said no such thing. Will get to it in a bit... struggling through another Heineken at the moment... and my own regrets... Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tripe

Remember we had to read this tripe at school? Apparently the mystery actually was explained by author. Have a look if your interested. Found it while drinking, see here: The Secret of Hanging Rock. Maybe its me but I always thought something more sinister occurred, and still do (not that it actually occurred). There is a bit of the Sandringham Company or the Mystery of Celtic Wood about it. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Made me wonder why some of us look for supernatural explanations for such things when the real cause of human suffering is our own weakness and failure... Now I can't stop thinking about the lads that disappeared at Gallipoli and Celtic Wood and the families and friends they left behind, even though I can't possibly have known them separated by nearly a hundred years they suddenly they look like men I did know in another place and another time. Men like you. Anotherclown (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My wife is coming now and I need to stop crying before she sees me. Promise I'll stop vandalizing your talk page now. All the best my friend. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, mate, interesting. I do remember reading that book and I, like you, thought the ending would be more sinister. Interesting, I had actually never heard of the Mystery of Celtic Wood. Shame on me. I know you are going through a bit at the moment. Please feel free to get in touch at any time, day or night via black means, or if you want a break, you know where I am in Adelaide - we'd be happy to have you. I know what you mean though about those blokes...every 7 June I remember two incredible blokes that Australia is poorer for their passing, and it makes me so very sad and angry at myself for how I let them down. I often find writing my battalion histories quite emotional, particularly when I read some of the more personal accounts. Take care of yourself, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I appreciate that greatly. I know you didn't let those lads down, even if you don't. I also know why you think you did, and wouldn't expect anything less of you. Beer was a bad choice. Turning the computer off now before I say anything else. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Night, mate. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

UDR A Class Review

Thank you very much for the comments you have made. I will follow your instructions to the letter. It is a bit of a learning curve for me but that makes it all the more interesting from an academic point of view. If I need advice I will, as suggested in your notes, contact you. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Rupert would you consider it important to keep the image of the Yellow Card in the article? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, the article probably wouldn't suffer greatly without them, in my opinion, particularly given the current debate about their copyright status. As a single item of equipment, they probably do not warrant that level of coverage. Having said that, if the rules of engagement that the UDR operated under is an area that has been covered significantly, you might refactor the "Yellow card" section to discuss rules of engagement more fully; you could then summarise the images in your own words. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What I've done is to remove the references to the other cards and retitled the section "The Yellow Card". Given the significance of the card in this campaign I believe there is a strong case for keeping it. I'm sure we'll get the copyright sorted soon but the worst possible scenario there is that it's Crown Copyright, in which case it can be used. The argument then revolves around the "fair use" aspect of the card and its significance in the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've now had confirmation from the British National Archives that the image still falls under Crown Copyright. All I need now is to persuade the copyright editors that it warrants retention on the article. Fancy giving your opinion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_19#File:The_Yellow_Card.jpg ? I'd be grateful if you were in support and could put a case better than the one I have. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not sure that my opinion would hold much weight, to be honest. If you are claiming fair use, one of the requirements is that the image is used only where it really needs to be. The argument will probably be that it isn't absolutely necessary in the UDR article, although perhaps it might be in the Operation Banner article (I don't know, I have never read into this topic before). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Co-leads

I'd like to propose at WT:MIL that the top 3 vote-getters become the 3 co-leads again in the September elections; I think that's worked out well. Thoughts? On the Gallipoli thing ... sorry, I'll be more careful in the future. I just don't have the background and don't aspire to argue about these kinds of things; I think Milhist benefits from my prose work, and one of these days, I hope to benefit from it too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've got no dramas with the co-leads proposal. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15th Battalion (Australia)

The article 15th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:15th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 15:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please assess the following:

AustralianRupert,

Please either assess or re-assess the following articles for me. Also feel free to make any corrections or improvements to them. Adamdaley (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• 144th Indiana Infantry Regiment
  • G'day, Adam. Good effort. I have assessed this as C class due to the criteria, although I think some editors might disagree with this assessment. To get it to B class, it needs more context about why the unit was raised/mustered out, its structure (e.g. how many companies did it consist of?), and the battles it took part in, or how the fatalities occurred, if the unit is perpetuated by any current units, etc. Perhaps you might consider getting an overview history of the American Civil War and then something more specific for the individual battles (I don't know if your local library would have anything, but it might). That might help you go beyond the information in Dyer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• 145th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 146th Indiana Infantry Regiment
  • Assessed as C class, per 144th. Same advice regarding expansion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• 147th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 148th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 149th Indiana Infantry Regiment
  • Assessed as C class, per 144th. Same advice regarding expansion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• 150th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 151st Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 152nd Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 153rd Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 154th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 155th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 156th Indiana Infantry Regiment
• 157th Indiana Infantry Regiment
  • Agree, this is a stub. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• 158th Indiana Infantry Regiment
  • Agree, this is a stub. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• 159th Indiana Infantry Regiment
  • Currently a stub, which I agree with. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• G'day, Adam, I've had a look at a few of these, but I probably won't go through all of them, unfortunately. The advice that I listed for 144th is generic to all of these articles, though, in terms of suggestions for improvements/expansion. Have a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War II A-class review

Hello
Yes, actually I'd be glad if you could tell me how to close it. I made the changes faithfully but there's one huge stumbling block (I cannot access "real" printed work for every cite) so there's nothing more I can do. If I ever do, I'll come back to it.
All the best,Brigade Piron (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, if you wish for the review to be closed, the best way to do so is to add a note to the A-class review page asking for an uninvolved co-ordinator to do so stating that you want to withdraw it from ACR. That said, I think you might have misunderstood what Nick is asking for. I don't believe that he is asking for all citations to be to print sources. What he does appear to be asking for, though, is sources that are "reliable" as per WP:RS, which includes both print and internet sources. Given this, perhaps you should respond to Nick on the ACR page and ask him to clarify his comment. You might be able to salvage the review if you clarify his request. Additionally, quite a few of my comments and also Kirk's don't seem to have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service FAC

Hi, If you have time and aren't totally bored of this kind of topic (and fair enough if you are!), I'd really appreciate it if you could post a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service/archive1. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Madgwick thanks

I just went to respond to the GA review and saw that you went ahead and made the corrections and passed the article. Thank you very much for the GA review and for the improvements. Cla68 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Good work on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		Herewith usurping the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons on behalf of all the members of this WikiProject. Thanks for your work in tallying the reviews and handing out awards to all the other reviewers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! Have a good weekend. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sitara-i-Jurat ribbon.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sitara-i-Jurat ribbon.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Megiddo (1918), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 11th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Messines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Casimir Pulaski

It took me a while but I finally was able to reply to you there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of interest

Since you participated in the review of Tadeusz Kościuszko for GA and/or A-classes, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1 (at this point there are few substantial comments there, and the article is likely to be failed due to lack of community's interest). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Assess: 156th Indiana Infantry Regiment.

AustralianRupert,

Could you please assess this: 156th Indiana Infantry Regiment. I've made improvements. Adamdaley (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I have to profess that I'm not sure about this one. There doesn't seem to be enough content to rate it as B class, but then again if it didn't actually see combat there probably isn't much to write about. Sorry, I'm probably out of my depth with this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Edwin J. Roland

G'Day...Thank you for taking the time to assess the article Edwin J. Roland. After finishing the article, the paragraphs looked a tad long in a couple of places and I broke them without making sure I had cite tags at the end of the new paragraphs. In any case, the cites are there now and everything should be tidied up as far as the cites are concerned. I noticed that B2 is not in order in your assessment. If this is because of the missing cites then everything should be good to go; if you could do me the favor of a reassessment I would be grateful. If B2 is dinged for another reason, could you give me some idea of what you feel it needs to bring it to B class? Thank you for any guidance you have given in the past, the present, and the future...how's that for covering all the bases. (American baseball term...do they have bases in cricket? Maybe I better research that!)

Anyway, thanks, Mate... Cuprum17 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, looks good. I think that if you could expand the lead with a couple more sentences it would be B class. In regards to cricket, no, there aren't bases, but there is a wicket, which is a term that can mean a couple of things in the game, just to make things confusing. Anyway, the cricket isn't going well for my country at the moment, so its a bit of a sore point... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A Kansas sunflower for you, Mate!

The Kansas State Flag

AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!! I can't believe the amount of holes I left in the editing of the article. Thank you for the repairs you performed on my sorry effort of an article. I really appreciate your help...perhaps I will get better at looking at my own work and actually seeing my mistakes one of the days. I am embarrassed to say the least. I have expanded the lead as you suggested and put the article back out on the requests for assessment page. Anyway, I'm fresh out of Foster's to reward your efforts so I will present you with a couple of tokens that are near and dear to me...the sunflower, the Kansas state flower; and the flag of Kansas , the prettiest of the 50 state flags of the U.S. (there might be a bit of bias in that statement!) Thanks for your support at times when I seem adrift...it is appreciated!

On another note, I looked at the Wikipedia article on cricket and I am intrigued by the sport...I will have to study it bit to understand the play of the game, but maybe I can find some footage somewhere on the internet. Which Cricket Club do you follow? Any favorite in South Australia? Well, anyway; Cheers, Mate! and thanks aplenty! Cuprum17 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, cheers for that. No worries about the article; I'm glad to help. Good luck with taking it further. I used to play for Valley District Cricket Club, but haven't for a while due to postings/ injuries / a complete lack of talent...etc. ;-) I've been watching Prospect Cricket Club a bit since moving down to SA. I'm a Queenslander by birth, so in the state competition I support the Queensland cricket team, although it doesn't look like I will be sent back there soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Australian Survey Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

497th Air Expeditionary Group

Thanks for your assessment. And a

Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for <an accurate assessment of an article I'm trying to promote to B>

. I agree with all of your points but one. SAC's desires to replace its MAJCON units with AFCON units is one of those things I've regarded as self evident, but I agree with your assessment as needing support. It will probably be a challenge, but if I find it, on a day that I'm bored I can boost my edit count by inserting the reference into a couple hundred articles. I do disagree with your identification of a need to support the "nothing happened" portion of the article when the before and after actions are supported. Kind of like proving a negative. I will resist the temptation to delete the sentence, but I feel this dooms the article to C status forever.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, the reason I placed the citation needed tags where I did is because the general rule for a B class rating within the Milhist project is for each paragraph at least end with a citation. If you can't find a source for something, then in reality it shouldn't be mentioned in the article if you want it to meet the B1 (referencing) criterion. I understand that that seems a little counter intuitive when you know something is true, but nevertheless, that seems to be consistent with how B class assessments have been handled in the time I've been working within the project (the argument being that we write for lay people). That said, if you disagree with my assessment, please feel free to ask someone else to have a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Worth a chuckle

I couldn't help but quietly agree, even if it clearly is vandalism - [1]. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That old chestnut... AustralianRupert (talk) 22

37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

private project
Thank you for quality articles persuing your private project, such as Battle of Milne Bay, that "first broke the spell of the invincibility", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian(22 February 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 125th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Monash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Notable deaths"

Is there a Wiki view on Notable deaths sections? I removed on from the Battle of Verdun page but someone wants it back. I find them objectionable because notable implies that there were other sorts of deaths, such as un-notable ones.Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, in my travels I haven't yet come across anything policy-wise. Sorry. My personal opinion is that if a death is "notable" (whatever that means) it should be mentioned in the prose/body of the article. While I wouldn't want to define notable, if I had to, from an encyclopedic point of view, I'd probably say it should be limited to those that caused a signficant impact in the battle. For instance, the death of a high level commander which "turns the tide" might be "notable". Given the apparent lack of policy, I suggest trying to establish consensus for a course of action on the article's talk page. Are there references for the deaths being "notable" within the context of the battle? If not, then I don't think they should be included. If there any, then perhaps a compromise can be reached? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems a matter of listing people who were famous for other things who died at Verdun, rather than an operation going wrong because a bomb landed in a headquarters and killed some bloke with a message. Putting them in the text wouldn't be as obnoxious, Driant would count Émile Driant (French career officer, writer and politician) but the other two (Kiffin Rockwell (American pilot in the Lafayette Escadrille, Verdun (Bar-le-Duc), 1916) Franz Marc (German painter)) seem more like sightseeing. What about the bricklayers and coal miners who died etc....Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A person's participation in a battle doesn't have to change the course of the battle for it to be notable - some people's deaths are notable and the vast majority aren't. Lady Thatcher's death earlier this year was front page news across the world, whereas my stepfather's funeral got a brief advert in the local rag. My view, for what it's worth, is that it reminds us that war is human tragedy and far from being "elitist" their death reminds of the nameless thousands who participated and died - one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic as Stalin is supposed to have said. Charles de Gaulle, quite rightly, has a footnote mentioning his capture because it was an important part of his life, mentioned in every biography of the man, in lots of books about Verdun, and even in a Flanders & Swann comedy song of the early 1960s ("This old man, he played one, he played knick-knack at Verdun ..." went the first verse). The participation of Harold Macmillan and J.R.R.Tolkein on the Somme matters for the same reason - they represent their generation. The other point is that it is gratuitously deleting useful and correct information which somebody has taken the trouble to post and which has been in the article for years: I'd heard of Driant from having read about Verdun over the years, but now I've heard of the other two, who are both notable enough to have wiki articles about them.Paulturtle (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

How callous, how elitist. "Unknown" soldiers were chosen for those who want to commemorate such bloodbaths. Why was Thatchler's death notable but those of her victims weren't? It's hardly npov is it?Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the very opposite of elitism, for reasons implied above, and very far from callous - it's easier to relate to the tragedy of a human being's death than that of an "Unknown Soldier". Thatcher's notability, as an important politician, is a fact - whether you agreed with her or not is neither here nor there.Paulturtle (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Keith and Paul. At the end of the day, I think it comes down to what the sources say. Do accounts of the fighting discuss the deaths of these people? If so, and they form a signficiant part of the narrative of the battle, then perhaps they should be mentioned, albeit with consideration to WP:WEIGHT. If not, then the account of their death in the fighting probably belongs in their own articles (e.g. their biographies). That said, as you both seem to have strong views either way, perhaps you might post a comment on WT:MILHIST asking others to give their opinion. At least then, regardless of the outcome, there is consensus and a way forward. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, including what the books mention is clearly a better criterion than deleting stuff because it offends somebody’s political worldview. De Gaulle (brief footnote) and Colonel Driant (mention in the article of how he warned that Verdun was at risk, and then got killed) obviously pass that test.

Ian Ousby doesn’t include “famous” deaths but does mention lots of individuals who fought there. I don’t have a copy of Horne “The Price of Glory” to hand. Malcolm Brown doesn’t list famous deaths (though he does mention the poet Charles Peguy being killed at the Marne) but does have a list of subsequently-famous French and German soldiers who fought there – one of them, interestingly, was von Stulpnagel, one of the July 1944 conspirators, who insisted on stopping off at the Mort Homme whilst being taken back to Berlin – it was there that he tried to shoot himself but managed only to blind himself. But that’s not to say that if one carried on looking one wouldn’t find a paragraph in some book or other about modestly famous people who were killed.

The answer, I think, is that books nowadays are unlikely to include deaths of modestly “famous” people but a generation or two ago when the war was still a living memory they probably would have done, just as British and Australian books would once have included lists of now-forgotten footballers, cricketers, poets and painters. In the English-speaking world, incidentally, being a member of the “elite” meant running a disproportionately high risk of getting killed – the “Lost Generation” of young officers. Nowadays dead and participants only get mentioned in the books (and thus there is a case for including them) if they are very notable, like Harold Macmillan, JRR Tolkein, Raymond Asquith on the Somme, or Rupert Brooke (died of disease on the way there iirc) and Clement Attlee at Gallipoli, or Wilfred Owen in 1918. So, paradoxically, as the war has faded from living memory the list of notable deaths has become more, not less “elitist”.Paulturtle (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I pefer a worldview which doesn't brush millions of human beings aside, by dividing them into notable and non-notable categories. If survvors are to be mentioned then what did their experience of Verdun or the Somme etc do to affect their later behaviour? I think Oz R's point about including the material in biographical pages makes sense, as does the effect of an individual on the battle being notable or not being kept in the narrative. Considering the extent of the revision I made to the article, the criticisms since have been minor and the biggest critic is me, since I left quite a lot of humbug and purple prose alone. That said, it's nice to know that someone has read it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Juskalian

First off, I would like to thank you for devoting your time and interest in the A-Review of Juskalian. However, I am still upset that the article has been removed due to reliable sourcing concerns. I believe the source that Nick-D talks about is reliable since it can be verified through other sources and because it is paraphrased to a great extent. I don't see what is the harm of using that the source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, perhaps the way forward might be to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what the consensus there is? Additionally, if possible, the way I'd try to approach the issue is try to balance the use of the source in the article with a couple of others if they exist. Good luck. I will be more than happy to review the article again if or when you bring it back to ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 48th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Somme (1918) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Military numbers query

can you post the Military history wiki's group guidelines to numbers on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:3d_Fighter_Training_Squadron? I am not sure where it is. Thanks in advance! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Substing templates

Hi! Just wanted to remind you that when you use a welcome template on someone's talkpage, that you should always substitute the template. (For example, you should use{{subst:welcome}} rather than {{welcome}}.) Cheers, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 11th Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 11th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 11th Battalion (Australia)

The article 11th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:11th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

145th Indiana Infantry Regiment

AustralianRupert,

I know you were wanting to improve the 145th Indiana Infantry Regiment article. Unfortunately, the ".txt" file you were referencing from I was doubtful of what errors it would contain. I feel the files I have from the archives website for W.H.H. Terrell are ".pdf" files. Hope the revert of mine on this article doesn't discourage you from assessing! I know you have been good to me. Adamdaley (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Adam, please do what you feel is best. So I know, were you just concerned about the link, or did you not agree with the extra information I added (for instance the brigade/division allocation etc)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't verify it 100%. With any other articles with information sure, I wouldn't worry so much about it. Unfortunately, with the limited resources I have such as Dyer, Terrell and a book, is the only sources I have and trust. Adamdaley (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 7th Signal Regiment (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confrontation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I got it (the dab). BTW interesting article - I'd been meaning to wikilink 547 Tp in the Long Tan article for a while but actually didn't put two and two together. Anotherclown (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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] 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Siege of Galle (1640)

Thank you good sir, thank you very much for your valuable contribution to this article. I really appreciate your time and effort. I’m planning to give it a several weeks before trying to get it to GA status. Meanwhile I’m kindly requesting you to go through the following sentence because I feel the meaning has changed.(I may be wrong) Under “Allegations of poisoning and ill-treatment of prisoners”

“…conditions improved slightly and after nine months the Dutch agreed to pay a ransom for the civilians. “

Usually the native prisoners were sold as slaves but the Europeans troops and civilians were held for a ransom giving their families and loved ones with an opportunity to buy their freedom after paying a sum of money to the captors. In this instance the ransom was payed by the Portuguese merchants to the Dutch officials.

Galle fort is a tourist destination and a beautiful place to visit. If and when you get a chance to visit Sri Lanka, I hope you will enjoy its magnificence and be able to relive this forgotten struggle that took place there. And once again thank you very much for helping to improve the article.

Thanks,

Nishadhi (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nishadhi: G'day, sorry for that. If I changed the sentence to "...conditions improved slightly and after nine months Portugese merchants offered to pay a ransom for the civilians", would that be correct? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Perhaps, "...conditions improved slightly and after nine months Dutch agreed to release the civilians in exchange for a ransom" or something like that. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I've added that now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

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) 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Who won the first war?

Since you'd just came back to edit Second Anglo-Afghan War, maybe u should focus for once about the First War if u haven't b4. After the massacre of the British army, the British sent a new force into that country. Apparently the British completely defeat the Afghans into retaliation for the massacre. Certain some editors maintain the phrase "Afghan victory" in the inforbox. But the Afghans only won few battles including the massacre. The war as the British withdrew but not after successfully wiping out Afghan forces in the new attack. Also, the British withdrew was because of political disturbance back in India. So, should we reword the result of the First War too? ༆ (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ross Stanford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dunkirk Evacuation

Hi AustralianRupert, and thanks for taking on this review. I have addressed the listed points and await your feedback. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I thought I would add a note of thanks for your more sensible and friendly comments on the Long Tan talk page. Particularly also as you are the major contributor to the article. I just wanted to add by way of clarification that the difference between A /aː˧/ and  /əː˧˥/ isn't just the difference between long-A "Longtahn" and short-A "Longtun" it is also different Confucian Vietnamese meaning. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!

Lead Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2013 – September 2014

Congratulations on being elected lead coord for 2013-14! Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations Rupert on being elected lead coordinator of the Military history project for the next year. I very much look forward to working alongside you as a new member of the team. Well done again and good luck! —Cliftonian (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto - congrats! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations also from me - this is well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A great showing -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, everyone. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

666!

As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, cheers. Congrats! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B ACR

Hi AustralianRupert, I believe I have addressed all your concerns over at the ACR of the AV-8B article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow up: the article is at FAC right now -- your input is welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten FAC

Hi, I've nominated the Operation Tungsten article which you reviewed at A-class status for a FAC. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could post a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

List of British Army regiments that served in Australia between 1810 and 1870‎

OK. "Curiosity killed the cat." Why 1811-1869?

Or does the article really mean 1810-1870? In which case:

• It should be renamed to List of British Army regiments that served in Australia from 1810 to 1870‎
• Why 1810-1870?

The article doesn't make it obvious. It does, at least, mention

"... the New South Wales Corps, provided colonial defence until 1810 when they were returned to England following the events of the Rum Rebellion. After this, regular British Army regiments were dispatched to the Australian colonies on a rotational basis."

but there's no explanation of what's "magical" about 1870. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(BTW: Unless you advise against it, I'm inclined to rename the article. i.e. I'm soliciting your opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

G'day, 1870 was when the last British Army regiment left. The article currently states (in the second paragraph): "although a force of 15 companies of British infantry remained until 1870 when the last British regiment was withdrawn." Also (in the third paragraph): "The last regiment to leave was the 18th, which served the shortest tour, under a year, leaving in 1870." I personally think that is clear as to why the 1870 date is included, but I'm probably biased. Happy to discuss the move if you feel it necessary, as your suggested title is probably slightly more accurate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Happy to discuss the move if you feel it necessary - This is Wikipedia - none of it is "necessary". (Yeah well, gotta admit that people tend to "run away" when I say that ... )

Is there any reason you think the move is not a good idea? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really, no. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. It occurs to me that there was no regiment that served from 1810 to 1870, so I withdraw that suggestion. If I have further thoughts AND I can express them coherently, I'll make them at Talk:List of British Army regiments that served in Australia between 1810 and 1870. Thanks for indulging me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

South Africa Medal (1877)

AustralianRupert,

Article: South Africa Medal (1877)

Do you mind assessing this article since you've come across this article in 2010? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, it appears that the article was actually demoted from a start to a stub in March 2010 (after I looked at it) with this edit: [2] Given that the article hasn't really changed since then, I don't see much justification for me to change the rating. Perhaps you could ask Canglesea if they still think it is a stub? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko

Since you c/e much of the article about TK, you may be interested in this new subarticle. I am attempting to split all controversial/undue info about the will from TK article into this new one - it is a major topic at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1. Comments appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've just done a little bit of copy editing, but it seems like someone else is working on it now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Anglo Egyptian Darfur Expedition

Many thanks more than happy with the edits. Come across it while looking for something else and it just caught my attention a WWI British force forming square to fight off an infantry attack. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Jim. Yes, I found that very interesting. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

New Guinea Volunteer Rifles

Thanks for adding the Festberg info - there is indeed some inconsistency b/n Festberg, Sinclair and Downs on a number of key dates which is annoying. I actually had a look through Festberg before I nominated it for GA but somehow missed the entry, didn't think PNGVR was in there! Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

requesting some help

Rupert, I've run aground on some of my maps for my dissertation. I wanted to use generally available maps, but they just aren't there. I asked someone in the map project to help me and no one got back to me. Do you know of someone in the project who is good with maps, and could help me out? They'd be usable too on the articles I worked on for the First and Second coalitions (1792-1799). auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: G'day, Ruth, SpoolWhippets (talk · contribs) has done some excellent work in the past, for instance: File:Bougainville campaign 1945.jpg and File:Battle of Bita Paka 1914.jpg among others; unfortunately, though, they are quite busy in RL and might not be able to respond quickly. Anotherclown (talk · contribs) has done some maps using Inkscape also, for instance File:Australian military districts Oct 1939.jpg and File:Battle of Gang Toi 8 Nov 1965.png. Hopefully, one of these two might be able to knock something up for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks Rupert. I'll ask both of them and see if either can give me an assist. auntieruth (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 11 Squadron RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer

Thank for your recent Class-B assessment of the Mahan-class destroyer. You concluded that the first two criterions had not been met. I obviously wish to correct this, but the information you posted on the View History section is not entirely clear to me. Might you be good enough to explain it in greater detail for an old duffer? Pendright (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, too easy, I've added a comment to the article's talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll get to work! Pendright (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate citations to the first two items on your requirement list. The citations were missing because the copyeditor broke-up two paragraphs, without keeping in mind the citations. But adding the citations to the Ships in class is giving me trouble. Your first suggestion was to include a citation at the top of each column. With due respect, I couldn’t grasp that one – so I moved on to the tables of the Light cruisers of Germany.

All citations to be added will be DANFS references. And all eighteen ships in class have DANFS notes from previous references. In proceeding to add the reference to each item, in each line, my experience was this: the post to the first ship caused the addition of another DANFS note accumulating these specific items under it. The posts to the next three ships added the items into the old DANFS notes. And the next one repeated what the first one did. So, I decided to stop and ask if you could help me. Pendright (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I think that was happening because the Mahan DANFs ref had been named twice and the html was confused. I think I've fixed this for you now. Please check you are happy with my change. Regarding placing the citations in the top of each column, sorry I obviously didn't explain it well. What I meant was that if you have a reference that can cover everything in the table, rather than duplicating it for every field, you could just place a single reference in the heading rows, for instance where you have "Hull number", "Name", "Builder" etc. The approach you have started, though, should be fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

With your help, I believe the additional citations required for the Mahan-class destroyer are now in place. Thank you for your help and the civil manner in which you provided it. Pendright (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If I may, in your opinion, what does this work lack to prevent it from becoming an A-class article? Pendright (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, not sure, sorry. To be honest as ships aren't really my area of expertise. Within the Milhist project we have a few editors interested in this area who have lots of experience at A-class, though, who might be able to give you some ideas. Perhaps if you contact Sturmvogel_66 (talk · contribs) or Parsecboy (talk · contribs), they might be able to help? Additionally, you might also consider putting the article up for peer review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good advice - thank you! Pendright (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to No. 10 Squadron RAAF may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Squadrons'', p. 66</ref> In June 1945, the squadron ceased operations as part of Coastal Command]] and a reorganisation of RAAF units in Britain resulted in [[No. 466 Squadron RAAF]] being

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2/11th Armoured Car Regiment (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• vehicles such as the [[Rover Light Armoured Car]] and [[Dingo (scout car)|Dingo scout car]].{[sfn|Handel|2003|p=160}}{{sfn|Hopkins|1993|pp=95–96}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 49 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 26th Battalion (Australia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Horn Island and Battle of Bapaume (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

AustralianRupert,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

Could you take a look at the recent changes to the above article? The only reference I have is "Reference Number 4", even that isn't correct, since Vilyam "August" Fisher is not on that page. The other source he used was the book called "Red Spies in America". I've purchased this book from Amazon. As for the Britannica, I'll go and have a look at my local library. As for the year of the Britannica, it won't be the 2010; only the 2005. Adamdaley (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, unfortunately I don't have any of these references so I can't confirm or deny. On face value, the changes Speednat has made are referenced, and appear to be fair and to have been made in good faith. As such, if you are concerned, I'd suggest starting a discussion with them on the talkpage. It may be possible that there is simply a discrepancy in the sources, or there could be some other reason, in which case it seems fair enough to include both perspectives, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion concerning the recent changes of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, by Speednat. Adamdaley (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I've added a suggestion on the talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

AustralianRupert – I have made the necessary change to the new information of the name of the above article here User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 1. Which is my draft, and is the most upto-date. You can edit this to make it flow more, because I know it can be tweaked better. Once you've tweaked it and saved it to the draft again, I'll transfer it to the main article. Once again I appreciate what you've done with the article. Adamdaley (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, I slightly tweaked the wording and moved one of the sentences around (feel free to adjust as you see fit). Other than that it looks pretty good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

AustralianRupert – I've made further changes to the article, mainly referencing. The only rewrite I did was the first paragraph in the KGB service. Could you tweak the article again? Anything in return, you want me to look at, I'll try to repay you somehow. Adamdaley (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day again, Adam. I just had a look at the draft and couldn't find anything that I felt needed a tweak. Looks pretty good to me. I could only have a quick look, though. Very busy at the moment. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No. 452 Sqn RAAF

Morning. Just wondering if this would be a higher qlty ref for the info about Bader's spare falsey: [3]. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, not sure to be honest. Page 37, lists Wikipedia as its reference for the citation... Do you have Paul Brickill's book? It might be in there. I don't have it, unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Balls - you are right of cse. I didn't see that (my eyes must be painted on). Agree won't use that one. I had Brickill's book a few years ago but it no longer seems to be in my library (and I can't remember what I did with it... so now I'm really annoyed). Hate losing things. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate that...I lost a case of books in my last move, unfortunately. I found a better ref, anyway, using your search term. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As a general note, if you're looking for a ref and you can find it in the State Library of NSW catalogue (which is combined with the Mitchell Library's) then feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to dig it out next time I'm in there (usually once every week or two). To avoid divorce I've deliberately maintained a relatively small personal library of military history books, and much of the tree-based material I use is in the Mitchell/State... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian...avoid divorce, I hear that... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

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) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween AustralianRupert! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1st Armoured Division (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armoured car (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Milhist article writing contest

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon AustralianRupert for his fine efforts in the October 2013 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 58 points from 13 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss Peer Review

Hello,

As you have previously shown interest in biographies of World War I flying aces, you are invited to critique the above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, George, it looks like you've got a couple of good reviews, but if it goes stale I will try to take a look. Unfortunately, though, I don't have any subject knowledge, so I might not be able to spot much. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your revert at Battle of Milne Bay (short form of the talk page comment).

Whatever "policy" this is needs reconsideration. A ban on Facebook pages as full reference material makes sense since most change frequently and reputable organizations mainly use them for notification of passing events rather than information archives. As external links for a reader to follow up a subject one has to question Wikipedia ("of all things . . ." as several news people and politicians used last night about our Senator plagiarizing a Wikipedia page) bans of Facebook pages for places such as the Milne Bay Memorial Library and Research Centre. I am only interested in content, that within a fairly narrow area, and not much in Wikipedia drama, but have to note from that perspective such a ban looks like a spat between two less than highly respected web organizations than any effort to improve information content. Palmeira (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This has also been raised on my talk page by the same person, and now (finally) at the talk page of the article, so the discussion would be best moved to the article talk page. Discussion about changing existing policy would be best conducted on the talk page for whatever policy Palmeira intends to change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and bringing the discussion to where it might bring about a change. I will chime in there. Wish I could visit and hear "G'day" in its native land. Always missed those ports and that is a regret. Palmeira (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

13th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Australian Imperial Force

No. 456 Squadron RAAF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Distinguished Flying Cross

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment

Hi would you mind running an eye across the Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment. If you have time I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Jim, nice work. I did a bit of copy editing. Please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No copy edit away, it is a bit rough and needs a polish. Thanks. On another fork are you aware of any MILHIST members from New Zealand, there are plenty from that rougher place further west I know? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Jim, I believe both Buckshot06 and Zawed are from New Zealand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but its sorted. I was trying to locate a Kiwi VC but had the wrong name, and the article for him had no links etc . Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2/12th Field Ambulance (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Smith, the unit had the "highest casualty rate of a non-combantant unit in the Australian Army".{{sfn|McKenzie-Smith|2010|p=20}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

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) 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your op-ed

... is easily the Bugle's best ever. Be happy to talk any time about PTSD or the other stuff. Take care. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I second Dank's comment. Thank you for your views on editing and insight on how a pro operates. In the past you have helped me get through some rough times as an editor...with me not knowing that you were struggling with issues also. Thanks, mate...and I truly mean that. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for those kind words. To be honest, it's been worse recently. I had some bad news last week about a good friend and I've got a lot of stress in my life ATM, including a new bub on the way (most certainly a joy, but it also brings a lot of worry!). Trying my hardest to reduce stress where I can, so I've been limiting my time online recently. I know that seems counter to what I wrote, but anyway... Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Keep me in the loop on baby news. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever questioned what you did, to whom and for whom? The Australian state has collaborated with some pretty squalid regimes since 1945.Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully I don't think this is appropriate Keith. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Equally respectfully, I do, which is why I asked.Keith-264 (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to agree not appropiate. Stopped off to agree re the Op-Ed well done. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather wait to hear from OzR before going further.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day. I serve to keep my soldiers safe, and to honour the sacrifices of those that have gone before me. Everything I have done has been in support of these ideals. While I haven't always been successful at the first, I trust that I have the second and so no, I have not, nor will I ever question those things. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, as I read the op-ed I thought I could hear a dog not barking - the people on the receiving end of Australian state violence. Isn't one aspect of PTSD a dissonance between a humane conscience and serving the demands of amoral pragmatists? It struck a chord with me, because twenty years ago a few people thought I had something like PTSD (through working in an NHS health authority and a Social Services department) and the only way I could be healthier was to leave.Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day. I'll chime in here and offer support for my mate Rupert and his reply. I may not be from Australia, but there are certain things that are universal in the military and one is the concern for ones fellow soldiers. Another universal truth is that a soldier doesn't question orders but executes them cheerfully to the best of his abilities. Only when the first conflicts with the second have I ever had a problem, otherwise it was always "aye, aye, sir!" Rupert and I may never have served in the same army, but I understand where he is coming from. Cheers to all. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Another universal truth is that a soldier doesn't question orders but executes them cheerfully to the best of his abilities. Really? That's a negation of citizenship, if not humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders PS I didn't convene a kangaroo court, I asked a question. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the comment, "easily the Bugle's best ever". As I read you piece, I thought that you described my own experience with editing Wikipedia as self therapy exactly. We may have served in different armies, but I think the experience is universal. Survivor's guilt is part of the program with leaders who truly have a heart for those we send into harm’s way to do our country's bidding. We will ever measure our lives against those who gave that last full measure of devotion, and we will ever find ourselves wanting. It’s the hidden trap of the servant leader.Aleutian06 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Pritzker

What do you think would be the best way to let editors involved with the Military History project know about GLAM Pritzker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker ) and that they can use the Library's resources in updating military history topics? The Library's website has recently changed to www.pritzkermilitary.org TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Teri, I'd suggest posting a comment on the project's main central talk page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Also, it might be something that could be mentioned in the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle. If you wish to pursue that option, I'd suggest contacting Ian Rose and asking him as he is one of the current newsletter editors. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Intelligence

AustralianRupert,

Re: WikiProject Intelligence

I've noticed that the above WikiProject is coming up as WikiProject Espionage? Is it right for me to change the WikiProject Intelligence into WikiProject Espionage, even though they may not be "espionage" articles? They come up as unassessed WikiProject Espionage articles. Adamdaley (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, sorry, Adam, I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be best to post a question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Espionage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 3 Squadron RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Messines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking for advice

Hi I seem to remember you had a lot of input on WPMILHIST notability? I was thinking on doing a article on the 1st Machine-Gun Squadron (New Zealand), part of my bid to improve coverage of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade units. I realise it fails notability by size, not being a battalion/regiment. But it does have significant coverage in at least 5-6 books. Also not sure if this is relevant but as part of the total New Zealand contribution, of one division, and an independent brigade, compared to the UKs seventy plus divisions, a squadron seems a significant unit? Anyway what do you think.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Jim, without knowing much about the topic, I might be wrong, but given that as you say it is covered in at least 5-6 books, I'd say it would probably satisfy the WP:GNG, which should be okay in my opinion. Perhaps the best thing to do is to write a draft in your user space and then when it is done, ask a couple of people to take a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Independent squadrons/companies which have received non-trivial coverage are definitely notable IMO. This is particularly the case for NZ, which seems to have a tradition of producing detailed histories of such units which saw combat during the world wars. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree - if it is covered in 5 or 6 books is some detail it would seem to meet WP:GNG and would therefore be notable. Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OK will try a sandbox draft first, see how it progresses. Thanks all. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks, Rupert, for completing the review template for [[Rudolf Berthold][ that had me stumped. I puzzled over that darn thing for an hour. Now I am off to peek over your shoulder, and learn how you did it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, George. Good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

No. 2 Squadron RAAF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ambon

No. 455 Squadron RAAF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Merchantmen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a lot AustralianRupert for the Writers Barnstar. I really appreciate it. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

tb

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Cuprum17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Flow testing

Hey AustralianRupert :). As mentioned on the Milhist coordinators talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Military History, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 53rd Battalion (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:William Currey VC AWM P02939.045.jpeg|thumb|Private [William Currey, who received the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alexander Buckley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• displayed at the [[Australian War Memorial]] in Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://cas.awm.gov.au/heraldry/REL/18815 |title=Collection record REL/18815:
• 1979 |url=http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A070476b.htm |chapter=Buckley, Alexander Henry (1891–1918 |work=[[Australian Dictionary of Biography]] |volume=Volume 7 |publisher=Melbourne

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albert Borella may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Jean P. |url=http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A070355b.htm |title=Borella, Albert Chalmers (1881–1968 |work=[[Australian Dictionary of Biography]] |volume=Volume 7 |publisher=Melbourne

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute

Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Buckley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victory Medal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

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) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Decision proposed in Ottoman naming dispute

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 6th Division (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 6th Division (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 6th Division (Australia)

The article 6th Division (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:6th Division (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, all the best to you too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

◅ PRODUCER (TALK) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, I hope you have a great Christmas too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Xmas!

Best wishes for a great Christmas, and for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I hope you have a great Christmas and New Year too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, all the best to you too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian battalions

Hi in the 6th Div article and others, the Australian battalions are numbered 2/1st 2/2nd etc. Am I right in thinking the 2 stood for the second time the battalion had been raised as part of the 2nd AIF ? Or was there some other reason I have checked several of them battalion articles but it does not appear to have been covered. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The prefix 2/x indicates the battalion was 2nd AIF (as opposed to 1st AIF raised in the First World War or Militia). As a result during the Second World War there were many instances of battalions with the same numerical designations - with one being 2nd AIF and the other being Militia. For instance 2/19th Battalion (Australia) (2nd AIF) and 19th Battalion (Australia) (AIF during First World War then re-raised as part of the Citizens Forces / Militia in the post war period to continue their lineage). Hopefully that helps - AR might be able to give a more evolved answer though? Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

G'day, AC's response looks good to me. This link also has some information: Second Australian Imperial Force#Organisation. This was done to avoid confusion, for instance both the 2/3rd Battalion (Australia) and the 3rd Battalion (Australia) existed at the same time: the 2/3rd as part of the 2nd AIF and the 3rd as part of the Militia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 26th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Somme (1918) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations and Happy New Year!

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing equal second in the December 2013 Military History Article Writing Contest with 43 points from eight entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. All the best for 2014. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with article history syntax

Hi Rupert, bit rusty on closing ACRs, and keep getting a ? on the article history of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Natchez_revolt. Could you have a look and fix it if you can see the prob? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Think I've taken care of it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hew Dalrymple Ross

Hi - Many thanks for your very helpful copy edits to Hew Dalrymple Ross all of which I agree with. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Language tool

Hi mate - came across this [4]. Don't think its fully operational and often gets foxed but occasionally picks up some typos. Might be useful. Anotherclown (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive proposal

I don't mind renaming the page. I only intended the title I gave it to be temporary until (and if) it was accepted. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Military history reviewers' award

Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 29th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Somme (1918) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

Would you mind casting an eye on Siege of Antwerp (1914) as I think Brigade Piron altered the page rating unilaterally. I've tried to discuss it but he isn't answering the point I made, that since we've added a lot of material someone else needs to assess it (once it's finished).Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, I've re-assessed the article and left a note on the talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Eythenkew!Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Afghan War

There is an editor who only recently started editing and try to modify the result of the war. Might a sock of the previous user. ༆ (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for keeping an eye on that article. It is certainly possible, but probably best to WP:AGF at this stage. In regards to removal of "British victory" from the infobox, personally I don't have a strong opinion on this. The dot points in the infobox provide a reasonable summary of the result (I think, although I don't know much about that particular conflict), and if it is indeed difficult to tell who actually "won", it is probably best to drop the "British victory" from the infobox and just let the reader decide. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an outstanding 19 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		2013 "Military historian of the Year"
		AustralianRupert: As recognized by your peers, your contributions to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the last year have no parallel. By order of the members of the Military history WikiProject, I award you the honor of being Wikipedia's 2013 Military historian of the year. Congratulations, and keep up the stellar work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. We had plenty of fantastic candidates this year. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hearty congrats, Rupert -- well deserved! Like 2011 again except Nick's moved up a spot and the two of us put together couldn't even equal your tally...! Seriously, not only have you maintained your great record of reviews and continued to be a voice of calm and reason in discussions, you've done a grand job improving articles over the past year, especially those somewhat outside your comfort zone, i.e. RAAF units -- saved Nick and me a heap of work... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian, I found it good for my morale to focus on something different for a while! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd echo everything Ian has written above. This is very well deserved - congratulations. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Rupert—thoroughly, thoroughly deserved. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done again AR, much deserved. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Saw coverage of this in The Signpost. Congrats! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers, Another Believer. Have a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

42nd Battalion (Australia)

Gday I just created 42nd Battalion (Australia). Its fairly brief and a bit of a hack job - any chance you could pls have a look at it and make any changes / additions that might be necessary when you get some time? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so far, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, great work. I've just made a few minor tweaks and added a couple of images. Thanks for putting that together. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, also served in this unit. Gowallabies (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Campaignbox question

Talk:Siege of Antwerp (1914) I've knocked out a campaignbox but the title needs amending. Last time I tried this I ended up generating new campaignboxes instead of simply editing the original. Is there an advice page I can consult please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2/15th Field Regiment (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malaya

2/21st Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malaya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

activities

I've been plugging away on that 95 un assessed article list. At one point it was at 70.  :) auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gday, FYI Rupert is a little busy at the moment and has said he might not be active on Wikipedia for a bit [5]. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruth. As AC says, I've not got much time for Wiki at the moment. I certainly appreciate your efforts, though! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/30th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia Day

To my mates in Oz...have a good holiday...I damned near missed it, but it's still the 26th in Kansas. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. Had a pretty good day - watched Australia win the cricket and played with the baby. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

3 RAR

Great work so far. Stole my thunder updating the Afghanistan stuff (but did a better job that I could)! Just wondering if chronologically the article wouldn't be improved if the sentence about losing the parachute capability and moving to Tvle wouldn't work better towards the bottom of the article. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes I see what you mean. In its current configuration, I don't think that would quite work, though - given that it seems to be structured thematically around different deployments. If we changed the "Parachute role and Holsworthy Barracks" heading to something different, though it might be possible...hmm, will have to think a bit more about it. Sorry, I have to go offline now, but please feel free to tweak the structure if you can come up with something. Thanks for adding all those refs, too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately I can't actually think of a solution at the moment either (too sober). Was hoping you might have a brain wave hence the cmt ;-)! Anotherclown (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Did something now - not sure if its ideal though. Anotherclown (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor, interested in this article (former unit member).

- BTW I have added the unit citation in full at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Unit_Citation_%28US%29#United_Nations_Forces

- I also wrestled with the concept of article configuration, ended up leaving it & just adding the Para / Holsworthy section.

- There is discussion (LinkedIn, non wikipedians) about adding a 'Notable former members' section (or subordinate article if sufficient size). Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Parachute_Regiment_soldiers. At present ones we can think of are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg_Saunders, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hassett, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Bennett, Maj Gen B W "Hori" Howard AO, MC, (Retd), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roberts-Smith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Nikolic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hanson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Trevor_Greive. Do you think the idea has merit & can you think of other candidates?

Best rgds, Gowallabies (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

G'day, all, thanks for your efforts on this article. AC, the expansion and restructure looks pretty good to me, cheers. Gowallabies, regarding the notable members list, in my experience such lists often fall afoul of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and as such I'd suggest avoiding them. Happy to discuss further if you want, but at the moment my time online is pretty limited so I might not respond quickly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

12th Brigade (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Messines

2/30th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gordon Bennett

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 16th Battalion, Royal Western Australia Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron

Hi mate, I didn't realise the 'under construction' had gone, was collating my refs for an all-out effort on this one to take to FA, so we might be doubling up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

With this one I don't think it's just a matter of citing what's there, I was planning on adding a good deal more between the wars and post-WWII... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, sorry, I'll leave you to it. I have a photocopy of the Barnes and Eather sources, so please let me know if you need me to look anything up (although I don't get on to Wiki much these days with work and the little one so I might be slow to respond). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tks, I went through Eather already and I think I can get Barnes from the Mitchell if need be. This was the only unit article eligible for the WWI drive that I felt I could improve so I've been spending extra time on the sourcing, and haven't moved as quickly on the writing as I'd wished, but hopefully it will all balance out in the end... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

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) 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Australian Army during World War I may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Australian Army during World War I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

33rd Alabama Article

Thank you so much for your nice comments on the 33rd Alabama article that you recently rated. I have fixed the two "cite needed" tags you mentioned, and after I go over it again to check everything one last time, I will definitely be nominating it for GA. Thanks for taking the time to read and rate my article, and for your encouraging words. Cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your very welcome, good luck with taking the article further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mons

I've got the GOH 1914 I so I've been adding material to 1914 pages various (Liege and Namur mainly) and will be mining it for Mons during the day. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day again, Keith, sounds good. I'm sure what you come up with will be up to your usual high standard. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking it in the talk page for the moment.Keith-264 (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at 2nd Artois; I had a really good sandbox edit, then confused the sandbox with the article page and buggered both up. I've got some material to add from GOH 1915 and then it'll be finished.Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Keith, I've assessed it as B class because it looks reasonably complete to my lay person's eyes. I actually think that if you add info from GOH 1915 you could probably take it successfully through GAN or ACR. Have a good weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the prelude material to Mons yesterday and have put the GOH narrative of 23 and 24 August on the talk page for use as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Royal Australian Regiment

Hi mate. I've been adding some refs (and a small amount of material) to the Royal Australian Regiment article. Still a few citations needed though. Just wondering if there is any change you had some sources for these? If so it would probably be B class. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Its Sunday night and my judgment is increasingly impaired... but I think this probably needs a bit more on Afghanistan. What do you think? How much would be appropriate? Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day, mate, I had a crack at adding some refs - think I got all the cite needed tags. I agree, it needs a little bit more on Afghanistan. Probably doesn't need more than a few sentences, though, given the currentness of the topic we wouldn't want to overbalance the article etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this. Great work. Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Australian Regiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Australian Regiment|10th Independent Rifle Company]] (early 1970s – Late 1990s), disbanded.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.4rarassociationsaustralia.com/irc.html |title=10IRC and 311 Raider
• renamed the [[Overwatch Battle Group (West)]] or OBG(W). The fifth battle group to serve in Iraq (OBG(W) 3 was based on 5 RAR, by which time the unit operated in both the Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 103rd Medium Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for scoring 402 points during the February–March 2014 backlog drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject three-stripe award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 12:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the RAAF

Hi mate, good stuff expanding this article -- I doubt I'd feel so confident taking on the Army's history. If you feel you'd like a break (per recent edit summary), I think I could take on the post-war history in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, that would be great. Unfortunately, I don't get much time during the week to log-on these days, so I probably won't come back to the article until next weekend. I don't have much covering the post-war history, so anything you can add would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 49th Battalion (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], headquartered at [[Kelvin Grove, Queensland|Kelvin Grove]], with company-sized detachments at [[Toowong, Queensland|Toowong], [[Ipswich, Queensland|Ipswich]] and [[Lowood, Queensland|Lowood]];<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

25th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caloundra, Queensland

49th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Salient

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

ref=harv?

Greetings! Trust you are well?
I noticed you've placed "ref=harv" at the end of some "cite book"s on the Peter Badcoe page, but it's not obvious to me what difference it makes. Given that you're unlikely to do something that's pointless, it looks like this is something I should learn about! Care to point me at some "useful reading" about it? Thanks in advance, Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, adding this mark up code enables the short citations to link to the longer ones in the References (essentially you can click the short cite and it will take you to the long one) if they use mark up such as {{harvnb|Smith|1998|p=9}} or {{sfn|Jones|2000|p=1}} etc (if the article uses a manual citation system, e.g. <ref>Williams 2001, p. 4.</ref> then it is not necessary to add the "ref=harv" to the cite book templates). I have a script installed that tells me when this link isn't working, by displaying red warning characters in the article. The script can be found here: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. Have a good day. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 49th Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 49th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gday mate. I've completed my review now - just a couple of minor points to deal with / discuss when you get the chance. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Vasey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 49th Battalion (Australia)

The article 49th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:49th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Curious

{{sfn|Coulthard-Clark|1998|pp=140&n.dash;141}} Don't the wiggly brackets here do the same thing as {{nowrap|A–B}}? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, the curly brackets won't be seen in view mode, but they will in edit mode, which I think is the same for the no wrap device. Is that what you were asking...? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was curious about there being an ndash notation rather than a – between the numbers. I had assumed that the curly brackets of the sfn did the same thing as those in the no wrap template, so it was unnecessary?Keith-264 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day again, okay I think I understand now. The answer is sort of, maybe not really, but also probably. The sfn template still requires an endash to present one, this will either be a hardcoded html one (i.e. &.ndash;) or one presented in normal typeface (i.e. – ). That is to say, a hyphen ( - ) won't be converted by the sfn template. I'd hazard though that the no wrap template is actually the same, i.e. in the example above you have used a normal typeface endash as opposed to a hyphen anyway. The curly brackets in both cases are just the mark up used to transclude the template itself, I believe. Is that a sufficiently confusing answer? ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Er, is the n.dash notation necessary for a page range inside a sfn template? I put a – in but your {{sfn|Coulthard-Clark|1998|pp=140&n.dash;141}} citation used the n.dash form. Is it a case of same difference? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

At last I can sleep soundly....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1st Topographic Survey Squadron ‎

Hi AustralianRupert‎, hope the nappy changing is getting easier. Just a quick one. Do you believe that 1st Topographic Survey Squadron should be renamed 1st Topographic Survey Squadron ‎(Australia) and List of recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross to List of recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)? Your thoughts. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Newm, yes not too bad. Had a bit of practice before this one, anyway. In the case of 1st Topo, I'm not sure. I suppose it would depend if there are any other units of the same name, but the List of recipients of the DSC, I think should be moved to "List of recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia)" given that there other countries that also award medals of a similar name. Probably best to start a move discussion on the list/article talk page, though, before performing the move. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

22nd Battalion RVR

Gday mate. Just wondering if its correct to say the National Servicemen served in the battalion (per your edit here [6])? Didn't National Servicemen serve in the ARA? My interpretation of McCarthy is that the remote area battalions were raised to serve (at least partially) the political requirement to providing an alternative to national service for men living in remote areas (i.e. so that they had the choice of joining the CMF instead and thereby not being liable to conscription for overseas service under the National Service scheme). Or am I incorrect about this? It is true that National Servicemen had an obligation to serve in the CMF post discharge from the ARA, so is that what you are alluding to here? Anotherclown (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, mate, my understanding is that under the scheme that existed between 1965 and 1972, those who were called up for national service undertook two years full time in the ARA (during which they would be liable for overseas service) and then three years in the CMF. However, if they volunteered for the CMF before they were balloted, they could nominate to serve six years part time in the CMF, and not be liable for overseas service. (Grey says something about this on pp. 239-240 of the 2008 edition of A Military History of Australia) . Do you think the description I've used in 22nd Bn needs tweaking to reflect this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Howdy again. That wording looks fine now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Do you remember me asking about lists in lead sections? There's a query about the lead of the Passchendaele page and I've forgotten who I consulted with. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, I'm not sure if we've discussed this before or not either. I think the relevant policy is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. My personal preference is not to use a list in the lead if it can be avoided, which I believe is what the policy link says also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much.Keith-264 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28th Battalion (Australia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 28th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28th Battalion (Australia)

The article 28th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:28th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

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) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes on "Yank" Levy

Dear AustralianRupert,

Thanks for coming aboard.

I have just discovered enough information so that I think we can get past this hurdle.

The whole theory is that "Yank" Levy was not just a soldier and an assassin, but was a committed Socialist with a socialist's set of values, which influenced his analysis and his goals and presentations. It wasn't just all technical stuff.

Feel to free to use any this stuff. It is also in my sandbox. These are direct quotes from the material I found, so its all got to be paraphrased.

Cullen, Stephen (2006). "Home Guard Socialism: A Vision of a People's Army" (PDF). Coventry: University of Warwick: 15, 25, 26, 29, 31–32, 37-38 51. Retrieved April 21, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

As one of W’s adherents from the Spanish Civil War, Yank Levy came on board to teach military matters. Page 15 Another biography was planned, and Tom Wirthington conducted research for it. “ which promises to be fascinating reading, with Levy as a latter day Stephen Crane or Jack London. page 48 51

However, from the Home Guard socialists' standpoint, previous manifestations of the popular defence of Britain were important not just because they attested to the enduring patriotism of the population, but also because those manifestations could be fitted neatly into their narrative of a popular, people's movement. Bert 'Yank' Levy, a Canadian who fought with the British battalion at Jarama, was another of Wintringham's comrades at the Osterley Park training school. Levy had served with Royal Fusiliers in the Near East during the First World War, and then, by his own account, had been involved in the Sandinista revolt in Nicaragua in the 1920s. He was captured on the second day of the British battalion's action at Jarama, and a photograph exists of Levy with other captured British machine gunners being guarded by Nationalist Guardia Civil. He taught classes in 'unconventional warfare', which formed the basis of his Penguin Special, Guerrilla Warfare (1941, with an introduction, and, it appears, some input from Wintringham himself). Page 25 In Guerrilla Warfare, Levy referred to a range of precursors to a projected Home Guard guerrilla defence of Britain. He made a direct connection between the 'heavily armoured forces' of William the Conqueror and those of Hitler, holding up Hereward the Wake as a model of resistance to the Home Guard, albeit one, as Levy admitted, who failed to defeat the invader. Page 26 'Yank' Levy, in Guerrilla Warfare, made particular reference to the Irish war of independence, noting that 'the Irish were the first guerrillas to fight against an army that largely manoeuvred by vehicle', something that was of direct relevance to a Home Guard faced by a potential invasion by what was thought of as being a highly mechanised army39. Levy also made extensive reference to the Arab Revolt, and Orde Wingate's role in organising 'Jewish irregulars in Palestine'. Levy's advice to the Home Guard was to read fictional accounts of the campaigns in Ireland, Spain and China, namely O'Malley's On Another Man's Wound, Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Edgar Snow's Scorched Earth. Page 29 Levy would have wanted a large “However, they were not, as men like Levy would have wanted, a large, people's guerrilla force, rather than the government’s choice of setting up a “stay-behind force’ to harass invading armies. These were known as Auxiliary Units, or Auxunits, an admixture of “ regular soldiers, and Home Guard” with secret bases, known as Operational Bases (OBs), that had stores of equipment and arms. However, they were not, as men like Levy would have wanted, a large, people's guerrilla force The cover of 'Yank' Levy's Guerrilla Warfare (1941) Nonetheless, Miksche's analysis had a particular attraction for the Home Guard enthusiasts, and Wintringham, in his introduction, highlighted this element of the book. Whatever this type of Pages 31-32 defence was called - total defence, 'web defence', defence in depth - it gave a key role to the Home Guard. As Orwell noted in late 1941: 'The strategic idea of the Home Guard is static defence in complete depth, i.e. from one coast of England to the other. The tactical idea is not so much to defeat an invader as to hold him up till the regular troops can get at him.' This linkage of military effectiveness with social radicalism was at the heart of the Home Guard socialists' message. 'Yank' Levy argued that effective guerrilla resistance could only emerge from among people who benefited from a democratic political culture. His view was that, for guerrillas to be effective, they had to be imbued with independence of action and a freedom to use their initiative which arose most effectively under democratic systems. He contrasted this with what he felt was the inability of fascist or nazi systems to produce effective guerrilla movements: 'We in Britain can go much farther than can the Germans , when it comes to the development and utilization of guerrilla methods, for both attack and defence. There are ways open to us which are 37 closed to the Nazis. For we are men of democratic tradition, fighting for freedom, and guerrilla warfare is essentially the weapon of free men - a guerrilla band functioning efficiently under compulsion is inconceivable. Fascism or Nazism - and they are fundamentally the same - set out to destroy in men the very qualities which are most prized in guerrilla fighting. Free men, hating oppression, with freedom of initiative and arms in their hands - these make the ideal guerrillas. Therefore in the democratic countries there is far larger scope for the development of regular warfare along lines derived from guerrilla warfare. There are new ways of war which in this country and in Europe we can adopt, if we will - ways of war which the Nazis cannot and dare not use.' Levy foresaw guerrilla warfare in Britain in fairly stark terms, and clearly felt that there were few among the population who should not be involved in this type of warfare. For example, in addition to talking about the killing of Quislings and prisoners, he also mentioned, approvingly, an article from Soviet War News, which covered the exploits of two Soviet Young Pioneers, whom Levy called 'Boy Scouts', aged 12 and 14, who had killed numerous German motorcyclists with wire stretched across roads. In an interesting aside, Levy noted, 'the British Boy Scouts who demonstrated how this should be done at Osterley, when we had not enough older instructors, were about the same age'46. The point was, for Levy and the other Home Guard socialists, that the Home Guard represented the entire British people in arms, as Hugh Slater argued: 'The Home Guard is itself half civilian. It is a people's army. How useful it can be in the military sense depends wholly on the extent to which it reflects the needs, the desires, and the aspirations of the ordinary British people. Its purpose is a democratic one - to win the war against Fascism. The Home Guard must, therefore, be thoroughly permeated with democratic ideas, methods and attitudes.'

The point was, for Levy and the other Home Guard socialists, that the Home Guard represented the entire British people in arms, pages 37-38 . 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I've added some suggestions to the article's talk page. I had to limit myself to a quick copy edit. Unfortunately, I don't have much more time to devote to this article at the moment. Good luck with taking it further, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank for your many changes and suggestions on "Yank" Levy. A good editor is hard to find. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you are most welcome. Have a great day/night (whatever it is where you are in the world!) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be 6:23 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. We have about another hour of daylight left. I am in Warren, Michigan. Come and see the Great Lakes. I also have a place in Northern Michigan just north of Sturgeon Point Light. Come join us,have a sail on a Wayfarer and a beer. We now have some very good beer here, as microbrewing has finally arrived in force. I live a mile away from Dragonmead and I wrote the article on Michigan Brewing Company. I had something to do with all those articles, so you aren't just getting a good part of my biography, your getting part of my wikipedia resume. I've bored you enough. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

17th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to North Sydney and Battle of the Somme (1918)

18th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of the Somme (1918)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anzac Day 2014

My memories of Anzac Day as a child are of a solemn, but strangely romantic occasion. I remember looking up at the stoic – and, I realise now, infinitely sad – faces of my grandfather and the many men like him, pretending that I knew what they had gone through and given up. But six-year-old me knew nothing about what war does to a soldier, or the family he or she leaves behind. Now I know – sort of, as every generation fights a different war – I cannot help but hate the younger me. Why did I want to go through what they had so badly? Hubris? A desire to be tested? A warped sense of what makes one worthy? And if the latter, then worthy of what? Even now I don't know. Even now when, if I had my time again, I would do anything to make sure it was me that tripped that wire and not you. One decision put you there when it should have been me. I wish I hadn't made it, and that it had been me and not you. The thought sickens me in one instant as I think of the price that sacrifice would have exacted on those I love, but in another instant I realise it would be the culmination of everything I have wanted since I was a boy. The Glorious Dead. It is romantic, but it is madness. I disgust myself for thinking that way. It feels like an insult to the memories of better men than me. And yet it is true, for me at least, if I am honest with myself. I realise now, to steal something from Evelyn Waugh, that I had death wish. I still do I suppose, even though I realise now how hateful that is. My grandfather once said he hated himself for coming back from his war. I now know what he meant. Tomorrow, I will wake early (if indeed I find sleep tonight), attend the dawn service as I do every year and remember the 103,000 Australians who helped forge the name of Anzac with their Kiwi brethren. Anzac. Where once their faces were old, now they are not, and yet they have the same look I remember as a child. From Gallipoli to the Miribad. Anzac. Nothing I will ever do will make me worthy of the epithet, even a decade of soldiering, and yet I know so many who are worthy of it. Anzac. Tomorrow, I will think of you and quietly say thank you for your service...and sorry. I pray that you will forgive me and that one day, I will too. Lest We Forget. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Very touching indeed, Mate. The same sort of feeling, I'm guessing, about Memorial Day in the United States...but different I suppose. Don't beat yourself up over what might have been...and I don't know your exact circumstances, but I have been there with you in mind and spirit and walked a good English mile in your boots. I served as a young nineteen year old in the Army in Vietnam and did so because I thought it was the right thing to do and because my daddy had served in World War II. I lost a dear high school friend in Vietnam...not in combat...he was a clerk-typist, but rather in a training accident involving grenade training. He had been in country less than two weeks and came home in a casket. He didn't have to serve as he was an only child and there were exemptions for that sort of thing...but he did because his daddy did in World War II. It is interesting what motivates a man to do things...and you mention a few of the better examples. I stayed an extra year in Vietnam to serve my buddy's tour and honor his sacrifice...I had to...I had no choice in my mind. I stayed in touch with his mother for years...I had to...I had no choice. I know exactly where you are coming from Rupert...I have no choice. Participate in the Anzac Day ceremonies with pride and with the thankfulness that the others before you served their nation in time of need...and would do so again if it were possible and necessary. No worries, Rupert...and thank you for your thoughts on this day, Mate... Cuprum17 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for what you've done, what you feel and, I hope, for inspiring others to think a little more deeply about what this day means. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I sat here for an hour this morning trying to write something only to be thwarted by my own inadequate grasp of the English language and my inhibiting sobriety. Nothing I can write here can summarise my thoughts right now. AR - it is one of the greatest privileges of my life to know you, to count you as a friend and a comrade, and more than anything to have been understood and respected by you. Although I will never dare to talk for anyone else I doubt anyone except you resents the decisions you made, least of all the blokes you served with. You have given everything that has ever been asked of you (and continue to do so) and that is all any of us can do. Yet despite the dangers and hardships you yourself have faced, and your own injuries, you reproach yourself. I understand your feelings though and wouldn't expect anything less from you, you are and probably always will be, your own greatest critic. The true mark of an honourable man. Cuprum17 - trying desperately hard not to cry as my wife is in the room as I type this. Even though I will obviously never know your buddy he seems very like many men that I have known and served with and he will be in my thoughts today. Perhaps in some small way that may mean his memory will live on at least. Anotherclown (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. It means a lot to me. I hope you all had a good day. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Recent edits of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

AustralianRupert,

Could you please resolve the current issue between Garik 11 and myself. Garik, is basically trying to say that the Russian translation of "William August Fisher" (of the first sentence of his early life section) is pointless and wouldn't have been included on his UK birth certificate. The reason why I had a translation of his name (William August Fisher) in Russian was to keep it consistent with his other English-Russian translations in the opening section. With your intervention this may solve the problem of having translations with within the article. Your input would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, sorry to take so long replying - I don't get much time online now. Anyway, I'm not sure I can be of much assistance here as I can't speak Russian. Sorry. All I can suggest is that you join the discussion on the article's talk page and list any references that you have that support the translation. You might also consider posting a message on the Military History project's main talk page, requesting further opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 33rd Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Messines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. During this period you undertook 9 reviews. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. Bit of a slow quarter for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

RE Colonial forces of Australia

I noticed you reverted my edit on Colonial forces of Australia here. The edit was clearly vandalism - was there a reason why you reverted my edit? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 10:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, apologies for that. I don't remember making that edit, so I think what must have happened was that I accidentally hit the rollback button without realising it. I was trying out editing on an iPhone, and it seems harder than I thought. Anyway, I appreciate you fixing my mistake. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 6th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Lys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2/48th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of El Alamein

48th Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of El Alamein

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

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) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 59th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Albert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer article review

Thank you very much for your review and support of the Mahan-class article. May I respond to the related comments and suggestions on your talk page? Pendright (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Because of circumstances, I’m taking the liberty of replying to your comments in the following section. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer response

It's promoted. Next: there are a few things Rupert mentioned that I didn't respond to, let me know (here or on my talk page) when you're finished, and let me know if you need help:

I found and fixed a few instances of where ship names weren't in italics, please check if I missed any;

Checked the text and did not find any names of ships without italics. I added italics to a couple of names in the Ships in class table. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked a few myself, but where possible, if you mention an action at a location, I think the convention is to include the link to the battle/campaign article rather than the location, for instance Battle of Balikpapan (1945) rather than just Balikpapan;

Your point is well taken regarding battles vs. locations. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her" - do we know the name of the troopship? If possible, please add it here;

H.M.A.S. Duntroon - added to Perkins section Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"A court of inquiry found the captain, the navigator, and the officer of the deck at fault for the collision" - were these Perkins' crew, or the troopship's? [I guessed "troopship" and added that - Dank]

Good question: Roscoe, the source, does not say. Jurgen Rohwer records the event but is silent on details. A reading of the event by Roscoe could lead one to assume he is referring to the troopship. I hesitate making this assumption. Perhaps the statement should be deleted. I removed Dank's guess it was the troopship. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A court of inquiry ... removed by Dank - Pendright (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"File:Photograph of the wreckage of the USS Downes, hit by bombs during the attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306547.jpg": if possible, this image should cropped to reduce the effect of the whitespace. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I will have a crack;

I could use some help in cropping the Downes photo. Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cropped by Parsecboy - Pendright (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

wording: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her." For me, the word rammed makes it sound intentional, so I'd suggest rewording slightly. For instance, perhaps this might work: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when she collided with an Australian troopship." Either that or "when an Australian troopship accidentally rammed her"; "when rammed by an Australian troopship" (as above, probably use "collided with", or similar).

Substituted collided for rammed - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

End of AustralianRupert's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pendright (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, congratulations of having the article promoted to A-class. Sorry for the late reply, I don't get on to Wikipedia much during the week anymore. I've made a minor tweak to the mention of Duntroon. Good luck with the FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ACW checklist?

Thanks again for your interest in Battle of Fort Pulaski. As you know from my efforts there, there are several elements of editing which I am not up to speed on, so please take this as informational request, not as criticism, or even defensiveness. The consensus was unanimous, there must be something to it.

At American Civil War, it was demoted to a C class article due to introductory paragraphs without citations, which I thought MOS allowed. What are “Harv errors”? What is to be checked regarding the images? How is the See also section not MOS compliant, the reference to the series "[state] in the American Civil War" has been deleted already, are the thirty odd articles simply to be placed in alpha order, shall the thirty-odd additional state articles be listed separately in alpha order, how about the "[city] in the American Civil War" series?

In any case, relative to the expectations of the Military Project consensus, can a check list be provided on the Talk page on the occasion of a demotion, just in case it might be a motivator for frequent editors there? Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have on this. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, for me the main issue was the referencing, as I saw numerous paragraphs throughout the article that appeared to end without citations: the standard at A-class is for all paragraphs to be fully referenced. The citation style used is also inconsistent, which is a concern at A-class, although not at B or GA. Harv errors are script identified errors, which show in red when one has this script installed: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. The error occurs when there are citations that don't directly point to a long reference, or vice versa. Regarding the images, they all need to be checked for compliant licences: not sure if there are any issues in this regard, as I don't have a good enough internet connection at the moment to do so. I believe Dan also had concerns about the articles's prose standards, so it might benefit from a good copy edit also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the idea of Harv errors, not sure that I am up to it given the warning of malware effects on my computer; I am not familiar enough with the operating system to restart from scratch as my brother used to do once a year. I'll leave it to the tech-savvy. I fear I am one of the culprits supplying non-conforming footnotes, as I have yet to master the more code-laden sfn, ref name, cite book, I use the more open referencing, <ref>Martis, Kenneth C., "The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861–1865" Simon & Schuster (1994) ISBN 0-13-389115-1 pp.27.</ref>

My general take away is that the article is probably too volatile to do much better without serious attention to citations following each iteration of deletion/addition, sourcing/non-sourcing in text. I did spend some time in trying to craft a military narrative of the course of the war to include Union blockade and riverine operations, but the coherence is picked apart by inserts without sources inside of sourced material, most recently that there was a "decisive" Confederate victory in Virginia reversing Union fortunes in some year or another, when Norfolk, Fort Monroe, Aquia, Alexandria, Harper's Ferry and Wheeling were bases from which Union control expanded each year according to Martis' "Historical Atlas" (1994).

Periodically the neo-Confederate Blood Stained Banner, "since 1865" --- which sources say was "never seen" during the Confederacy of history 1861-1865 is substituted in the info box for the First National Flag --- which sources say was flown "everywhere", including over Atlanta when captured. Dank is correct, it is difficult to make headway, certainly without constant monitoring and restoration of sourced material. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Belated thanks for your review of the Mahan-class destroyer article. Pendright (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your efforts Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Tom Rees

I have made Tom Rees (British soldier) a new article. Feel free to improve the article further.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: G'day, thanks for letting me know and your hard work on the article. I'm a little concerned about the attribution for the article now, though, and uncertain about how it impacts the draft submission which appears to have been declined. As it was a copy-paste move, the article history does not include the edits made by the article's original creator such as MerielGJones (who had 42 edits) and 7&6=thirteen (who had 92 edits), or anyone else that helped improve it. I think that to meet the spirit of the site's attribution policies an admin will need to merge the new article's revision history with the other page (Draft:Tom Rees (pilot)). You might be able to ask one to help here: WT:MILHIST, or WP:AN. Anyway, have a great weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day, fellow Milhist co-ords, I wonder if any of you with admin rights could help with a history merge (as mentioned above): Draft:Tom Rees (pilot) and Tom Rees (British soldier)? If not, no worries, but thought I'd ask. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I can do it in a couple hours if no one else gets it first. Side point: why hasn't anyone forced you into applying for the admin rights? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I've thought about it before, but not sure I have the time any more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

All done! The most time you'll spend will be in answering questions. Find yourself a week where you aren't swamped and do it! If you have more than two in opposition, I'll eat my shirt. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Really appreciate your help and encouragement. Have a great weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Talk:INS Kursura (S20).
Message added 05:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks a lot for the review :) ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 05:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Back from break

I am back and believe to have addressed your comments on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (S'). Thanks fro your review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1st New Guinea Infantry Battalion may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |caption=Troops from the 1st New Guinea Infantry Battalion on patrol in New Britain, February 1945]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

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) 15:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Somali Armed Forces

Hi AustralianRupert, I'm coming to you because I cannot figure out any other way to deal with this POV-pusher, User:Middayexpress. He practically WP:OWNs all the Somalia articles, and adds ostensiably good material, but as soon as you add material critical of the transitional government, he unilaterally removes it. For example, I've readded this Human Rights Watch and Internatinoal Crisis Group material on the army, and he just takes it out again [7]. Can we do something about this? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Buckshot, as it appears to be a content issue, I'd suggest taking it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: do you have any other suggestions in this regard? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to have little patience for this type of behaviour, and would take it to an admin board for failure to comply with NPOV, but that's just me, I'm mostly a belligerent bastard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with the board, and perhaps a friendly reminder of the main points of WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just done as you suggest, and filed a dispute resolution request. Please take a look. In eight years, I've never been as close to quitting this site entirely in the face of POVpushing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I just went to the page to take a look and see that the discussion has been closed, as apparently it's the wrong forum. Not sure I agree with that as surely content is the key factor here. I have to say that decisions like this are what are leading me to question my time here too. Apologies for the bum steer, as they say. Anyway, moving on. I guess that it could be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, as the editor who closed the discussion suggested, but I understand why you might be reluctant to do so. These days, I'm focusing more on my offline writing (have had some success over the past year in that regard), and my children. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Rees (British airman)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)