ChoraPete

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ChoraPete, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi there. I just wanted to drop by and explain why your report to AIV did not result in any admin action:

1. The user you reported had committed three acts of vandalism over two days, and you have gone straight to the highest level warning rather than proceeding through levels 1, 2 and 4.
2. The user you reported had not edited since the day before the final/only warning was given.

I hope that explains why, just in case you were wondering where your report had gone. Vandals have to be fairly warned (i.e. progressive levels of warning, unless it is something very serious) and have to be active very recently, and have to have vandalised after their final warning had been issued, for an AIV report to result in a block. Thank you for making the report, however, it is good to see users actively seeking out vandalism to fix and report. I hope to see you around. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no worries and thanks for the explaination. Seriously though this bloke's only edits are vandalism... so why stuff around? Being nice to these clowns clearly doesn't work and is a waste of everyone's time IMO. Anyway I'm sure when he does it again another warning will have the desired effect... ChoraPete (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is true that there exist a power to block "vandal only accounts" but I tend to view three edits as not quite enough. But even then, the fact that there had been no edits after the final/only warning would mean that it would probably be rejected at AIV. I noticed this warning which you gave to an IP with apparently two vandal edits. Don't forget to level up the warnings. WP:TWINKLE is particularly useful if you aren't using it already. SGGH ^ping! 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget what I said there and have struck out - it's the same IP as before. I think I ought to get some sleep! :) SGGH ^ping! 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the Australian Army

Hi Pete, I have just finished updating the graphic commons:File:Australia Land Forces.png. One question remains tough: are the 21 and 22 Construction Regiments still active??? or have they been folded into the 19th Chief Engineer Works??? --noclador (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

and one more question: is the 17 Signals Regiment of the 17 Brigade the same as the 17 Command Support Regiment?? --noclador (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate. I'll have to look into this at work, it may take a few days as I'm flat out. My gut feeling is that both 21 and 22 Construction Regiments still exist and are entirely separate from 19 CE Works. Re 17 Sig Regt or 17 Comd Support Regt: fairly sure it is one and the same. I will check though. Sorry I couldn't be of more immediate assistance but I will see what I can do. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy again. I had another look at commons:File:Australia Land Forces.png and think there my be an error - where you have Support Bns and Combat Support Battalions IMO these are all now Combat Service Support Battalions, i.e. 7 CSSB, 1 CSSB, 3 CSSB, etc. Also 31 RQR and 42 RQR merged in 2008 to form 31/42 RQR (in 11 BDE). Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

re: CSS Bn. yes- you're right! changed that and thanks for the 31/42 RQR tip - fixed that too. as for the two Construction Regiments and the 17th Signal - I wait until you get back to me with details. thanks, --noclador (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Ok I can confirm that 22 Construction Regt still exists and is part of 4th Bde. 21 Construction Regt also exists and is part of 5 BDE. 19 CE Works Regt is entirely seperate. 17 Signals Regiment is part of 17 CSS BDE. I hope that helps. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks Pete - that helps :-) I created a new graphic with all the other changes (Adaptive Army) and uploaded it to the articles of the Australian Army. thanks for your help again, --noclador (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pete, thanks for the tips on the Afghan Army- although as you said we need solid info as per wiki rules. But since you said you have first hand experience I will now look out to find sources too, to confirm what we know thanks to you. --noclador (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		You have been awarded this Special Barnstar for removing unsourced material from the Korean War article. Good catch! Diannaa TALK 04:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. BTW good work so far on copy editing the Korean War article, its looking a lot better. Take it easy. ChoraPete (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bita Paka

Hi Chora Pete. I have done a couple of maps for the article, Bita_paka_location_1914.jpg and Battle_of_Bita_Paka_1914.jpg. Let me know if they suit, if there is further information you'd like to see on there etc. I have pared back the place names quite a bit, to concentrate on those actually mentioned in the article. PS the whole German New Guinea thing is terribly interesting isn't it? cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Top work, you really came through. Those are more than sufficient. Thanks. ChoraPete (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback

I'm soliciting your comments & opinions here. (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1944 in San Marino

A tag has been placed on Category:1944 in San Marino requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)