User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Use of RAAC

The format follows what is done for most Commonwealth regiments - for example if you check any of the British Army's armoured units, they are all stated as being part of the Royal Armoured Corps. This is also the case with infantry regiments; so, the page for the Royal Australian Regiment (for example) states that it is part of the RAIC, whereas individual RAR battalions show which individual brigade they belong to. Hammersfan 02/07/09, 10.25 BST

Okay, I think that makes sense, although technically it is a misunderstanding of the conceptual differences in what a 'regiment' actually is, i.e. in armoured units a regiment means the same as infantry battalion, whereas an infantry regiment is more a ceremonial creation rather than a command unit. But I'm not one to buck convention, so I will try to follow that guidance. Thanks for the explaination. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks for that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Background on Aus in VN

Did Ham get all the SoV RoV stuff mixed up like that? It would be a worry YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. No, any errors are my own. Apologies for any mistakes. I am by no means an expert on the background of the Vietnam War. My hope was and is to get people interested in fixing the article up. I added the background section in quickly because I felt that the article was missing something. I see that you've gone through and expanded/corrected. Cheers. Any further help would be great. I am hoping to try to get a group of interested editors working on the article to get it up to GA as it is currently listed as being 'Top' importance to the Australia project. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to see some more Aus-Viet FA/A/GAs up there. Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia is a bit lonely. Battle of Long Tan ought to be taken to FA, and Nui Dat needs an article (the base). The VN War coverage is not great YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

North Staffordshire Regiment got GA and it wouldn't have happened without your help. Cheers. NtheP (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. Always happy to help where I can. You did most of the work, of course. But cheers. Keep up the good work! — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

I recently discovered an old book published in 1974 in Lebanon. It contains a great deal of photographs related to the Yom Kippur War. The book is not copyrighted. Does this mean I can use these photos here, or are there other considerations to take into account? Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. Yeah sorry copyright questions are not really my area of expertise. I think you can ask questions about copyright at WP:MCQ. They should be able to help with your question. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll try my luck over there. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Symonds

Good work on Symo. Looks much better. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still trying to find my feet in the cricket project, so I am focusing mainly on just general clean up stuff. Only done a couple of articles, but hopefully it is helping. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cricket fan? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, played from age seven to 24 (just club) in Brisbane. Nothing special really, but huge fan. Had to give it up when I joined the Army, though. Hoping to go to the World Cup when it comes to Australia. I used to work for Cricinfo when I was younger too. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, all the best then, Aaroncrick (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Now moving onto Hauritz! :) Current Australian players art aren't real good so your work is much appreciated. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the encouragement. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read. I really don't know much about him :) Aaroncrick (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for your hints and advice. I will probably take you up on the offer to shoot some questions as i bumble along. Westedit (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir John McIntyre

Your edits of this page were both helpful and educational for me in my novice state. I can see I need to read up on the referencing protocols (long time out of Uni!!). Westedit (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all, happy to help. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael P. Murphy

Thank you for the review and I appreciate the assistance. I will start working on your suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CMF

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Thank you. I didn't realise I needed that! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help where I can. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Division

Thanks. Maybe the bot does need adjusting. Does 'AustralianRupert' mean you're Army? Buckshot06(prof) 04:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in hindsight it was not a good choice of name. Should have gone for something a bit more anonymous. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the people who know BA lingo know who you are. However, you can disappear and take another name should you wish - we all, should we have not have done anything against wikirules, have a right to Wikipedia:Changing username. I'll help you should you want the assist. But I'm curious now - can I e-mail you? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Email is fine. I will probably stick with my username though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar has landed

and is much appreciated. I have pinned it up on my electronic wall of my cyber-study. The tool is also much appreciated, if only as a matter of curiosity. Thank you for both.

I am raking through my beginner's articles and revamping them, in light of what I have learned. I ask for assessment when I have finished. When I am done, I have taken them as far as I can with my resources. The request for assessment is as much an attempt to get info on further development by the next editor as it is to gain a rating.

I do feel that Albert Ball is a Class A article, but another assessor assures me otherwise. I find that puzzling, as I can't spot any shortcomings in the material. It's too bad, as Ball's tale is a moving one, and one I should like to see become a featured article someday.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, George. I will try to help out where I can. I don't have much sources on aces, though, so I will probably be limited to formatting, etc. The Ball article is looking good, but A Class articles go through a review and need at least three other editors to support, so sometimes the process is a bit subjective (as editors have differing views on what makes an A Class article and what doesn't). I certainly agree, the story deserves telling. Take care and keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

James Edward Carpenter

I added addtional references to hopefully get B1 to yes for James Edward Carpenter. Please check if this is adequate.

In addtion, have you had a chance to review his brother's page? General Louis Henry Carpenter? It is up for GA review.

Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. There are still a couple of places that need citations. I have added in the tags where I feel they are needed. Also, I didn't mention it before, but I feel the grammar needs a little bit of work (not much). There are a couple of single sentence paragraphs that could be consolidated.

In regards to James' brother, I have started the GA Review and have a few comments. I feel that if you can address those, it would be a GA. Hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! While some copy-editing needs to be done, Louis H. Carpenter is close to A/FA status. When you get a chance, please stop by and check it out. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, will do. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some copy editing on Louis H. Carpenter was sent to me via email. Different! I added those corrections. Article now reads better. Closer or ready for A-Class approval? Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Undercounstruction

Dude, how can you asses an underconstruction article ? Something that is already undergoing some repair work. Kindly revert back your asseses. Nefirious (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you please specify the article that you are refering to? There has been a large back log of unassessed mil hist articles, and I have asssessed a number over the past few days, so you need to be specific about which one you are talking about. I would like to point out that there is no need to be concerned about an article being assessed before it is complete. Once it is finished you can request a re-assessment quite easily by adding it to the list at WP:MHA. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am refering to the article History of Weapons. I am concerned because I am still the lone editor of the article. The tag I believe is specially created so that the readers or the one assessing can easily make out that the article is underconstruction and changes are likely to be made. If under these conditions an article is assesed I personally believe that the morale of the editors gets drained off. Nefirious (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I certainly did not mean to lower the morale of anyone in assessing the article. Indeed, when assessing it I understood that it was still underconstruction, but felt that as it had been sitting in the unassessed category for quite a while and that I would be helping the mil hist project out in assessing it, particularly as at the time there was a large backlog of unassessed articles. I am sorry if it has offended you to have it assessed as a Start class article, however, that is what it currently is as its coverage is not complete for the topic. If I 'unassess' it, the article will automatically return to the unassessed category and someone else will probably come along and assess it, thus leading to the same situation. As such I do not feel that it is best practice to remove the assessment. If you feel strongly enough about it, I don't have an issue with you removing it, however, that probably wouldn't stop the article being assessed later by someone else and as such I feel it would be counterproductive.

The ratings themselves are rather subjective and it is best not to take them too personally. I read the article and believe that it is quite good so far and have no doubt that when it is finished it will be at least a B class if not higher.

As an aside point, if you are wanting to get others involved in working on the article, you might like to try dropping a note on the talk page of the Firearms project notifying any interested parties and asking if anyone is keen to work on the article. The project's talk page can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms. Or you could put a note on the Military History project's talk page, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Also, sometimes a peer review can spark interest. This can be done by going to WP:MHPR and following the instructions there. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite reply and trying to help me. I really appreciate that. I take your point. Thanks for helping me out. God bless you. Nefirious (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No dramas. Take care and keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

assessment on Hermann Friedrich Cloedt

could you be more specific please, on what is missing, and what else you think should be included? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Auntieruth. It looks like I assessed it just before you did a bit of work on it. At the time it was lacking some biographical information and supporting materials (i.e. infobox or image). You appear to have added those in now, so I have updated the assessment to B class as it now meets the criteria. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Would you look at Martin Schenck von Nydeggen too? I don't know who assessed that. I've created several articles off the Cologne War main article.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone beat me to it and they have rated it a B class. I've added it the checklist for the Germany project so that the rating shows correctly on the talk page. Good work, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

64th (2nd Staffordshire) Regiment of Foot

ndash: Dammit, I thought I'd combed every inch of this article for offending hyphens and blow me I missed one in the infobox right at the top of the page :-) Thanks NtheP (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) No dramas, they can be pesky little things indeed! — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War

Hi mate, if you're interested have a look at Rhodesian Bush War. An interesting topic that seriously needs some neutral editors. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Murray

You will see that I have made a lot of progress, and I thank you for helping tweak the punctuation. Since I am a wikinoob can you tell me what I am doing wrong with the dashes? Also, when I have filled in some of the references and built up the core section (WWII) I will be asking you to reassess. Is that OK? Friendofleonard (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, I will be happy to reassess when you're ready. It is close to a B class now, in my opinion. You just need to break up the large paragraphs in the first two sections, and make sure every paragraph has a citation attributing the source it comes from. Then it will be a B, I think. In relation to the dashes, it is a really minor thing and it doesn't stop an article making it to a B class (probably not even a GA, but certainly A and FA class require those minor sort of WP:MOS tweaks). It is a little confusing at first (and I still have trouble with some aspects of the Manual of Style myself), but if you read WP:DASH it should help give you a better understanding.— AustralianRupert (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I have done more work on the Leonard Murray page and, while I feel it needs more photos, I do not have the time to go through the long-winded photo registration process right now. The basic article I think is now more or less complete. Could you be so kind as to give it another assessment? Many thanks, for your time and earlier advice. Friendofleonard (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. I've taken another look. It is generally up to standard, but I feel it still needs a few citations. I have added the tags where I feel you need them. Also it could be improved by formatting the web citations using the {{cite web}} template. Some of the paragraphs are still very long, also, and might be better if they were broken up a bit. I've left comments on the talk page. You've certainly done a lot of work on the article for which I commend you. With a little bit more, it should be a B class. When you wish to have it reassessed, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. As I've done a bit of work on it now, it is probably best if someone else takes a look at the next review otherwise it would be a possible conflict of interest on my part. Cheers and keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of I Anzac Corps

Hello! Your submission of I Anzac Corps at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK 5 days

I happened to read your comments om DYK-rejection/5-day rule, and that you want to "give up on this." Here's a tip: Next time you do try again (I hope you will) create a subpage to your userpage (User:AustralianRupert/mytest or something like that). Anything you do on that page doesn't count for DYK; the clock starts ticking once you move it into main space. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Seb. Thanks very much for the advice and encouragement. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to you to know that your not alone, I have attempted several and have only recently gotten one DYK that made it to the main page for Jared C. Monti. Cheers with a toast. --Kumioko (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DYK can be a bit of a pain in the butt. It is nice to get recognised and have an article you have worked on on the mainpage, but it can be annoying to get there sometimes. I remember I nearly missed out on having a DYK once due to an editor claiming large proportions of the article I created was copied from a source, and it wasn't! Oh, well, don't give up, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest

I already left a message on the contests talk page but I hope you don't mind me asking a followup questoin. When we submit an article for the contest do we submit them 1 at a time or can I submit several as a group. For example I have several in GA or FLC currently that should be done in August and I have about a dozen I need to create (and a couple more to submit). Anyway, do I wait until they are done? or Submit them all now, at least the ones in GA and FLC. --Kumioko (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate, I believe that you can submit as many as you want in one block (although you need to make sure that they have the appropriate mark up so that you can get the credit for them (by this I mean * {{la|Article name}} (Beginning class) ~~~~ for each individual article). You can pretty much submit anything that you are going to work on in the month, even if you think you will only take it from a stub to a start, there is no need to wait for them to go to GA or FL. I tend to submit when it is at a start and then aim for a B that way it is more likely to have been reassessed within the month. If you wait for GA that can take a long time, so it might not get re-assessed in the time period so even though you worked it up to a very good standard it might still not score well at contest. That's my understanding, of course, and I'm still new at the contest so I might have it a bit wrong, not sure.

Looks like you've got a lot on your plate by the looks of all the entries in the contest. A good strategy might be to aim to get all the new ones to a B class (hence getting you 6 points for each). If you can do that, I'd say you might get a placing (1st, 2nd or 3rd). When it comes close to the end of the month, make sure you ask someone to assess them all for you. I'd be happy to take a look at some if I'm not busy at the time and as I'm not going to have many articles in the contest this month (max probably three articles), I've got no chance of winning so I can be objective. Of course, though, pretty much everyone who enters the contest is very good about it and will give you an honest assessment even if it means you will win. Afterall it is not about winning the contest, it is about improving the project. Anyway, good luck and take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, to be honest i don't really care about all the merit badges but I figure if I am going to do them anyway I might as well put a card in the hat too. This might shock you but I was rather conservative in what I put down so I don't look like an @$$. In all liklihood I will finish those to some degree in the next couple of weeks. The GLC's will probably go to the end of the month as well the the WWI list but the new articles and the Brevet Medal list I should have done rather soon. All the ones I put down there are either at GA, FLC or articles I need for a list. I have already started cleansing another batch to submit for various things (GA and FLC mostly). Heres the ones I will be submitting this month but still need some work, Jason Dunham, Eddie Rickenbacher, Charles Lindbergh to GA, and creating the remining articles for the WWI recipient list I submitted.--Kumioko (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry one last question and this seems silly but is it better to create a stub, then build it to a start and then get it to B or if I create an article that is B class does it count for the stub and start also. --Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New articles count for stub and start, I believe. So that if you get it to a B having started it from scratch within the month, you get 6 points. Where as if you create a stub or start, it is just 1 point. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, got 6 points then so far. I left the talk pages blank and I will fill in more data in the next couple days. Got a couple possible DYK's too, are they worth anything?:-) --Kumioko (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so in terms of the contest, but DYKs should help increase the hits on your articles. Of course, with increased hits, comes an increased possibility of vandalism, but that is the price we pay I guess for working on an encyclopedia anyone can edit. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I hope youse don't mind me butting in, but I just wanted to say that if you create an article and it is rated Stub, for instance, on the talk page but have bought it up to a B-Class level, you do not have to have it assessed as B-Class before the contest reviewer goes through at the end of the month/start of the new month; they will assess the article for you. So, don't frett if you have not got it re-assessed in time. Good luck! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Bryce. My mistake. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry; you're not the only one. Quite a few people have or do think the same. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Carpenter

Thanks, so in regards to something like this where there were basically 3 of us who got the article up to GA. Do we all get credit for it or does that, or just to the one who submitted it. --Kumioko (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Well I'd say that both you at John should get the credit of a GA as you both put a lot of work into it. As reviewer, I shouldn't take any credit, besides most of my work was very minor tweaking. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian Services cricket team

Yes they did go to India. Finally got cracking on it, and the manager Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keith Johnson (cricket administrator)/archive1 YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good work! I had a read through both and found them very interesting. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for I Anzac Corps

On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I Anzac Corps, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Liberia

Thanks for all your additions and changes on this, especially all those ****ing dashes! Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, mate. Have a good one! — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Job

I am really appreciate the wprl you did for researching about Sarfaraz Khan Marwat at Articles for Dletion. It was a nice research. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. Just had a look then. I think its possible, but to be honest I don't know much about the topic so I would be limited to only helping with some style and copy edit work. I think it is an interesting idea and a nice idea. There seems some resistance to the idea, though. I am going to try to fix the dab links - there are only a few. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Exciting times...WP:AWNB/A nine FACs at once including another cricket one.... although this one looks skinny YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just happened across Anotherclown's articles after seeing his work on some Aus in VN articles. I think he should start going to GAs/As/FAs. I've encouraged him but I'm not sure what he thinks. Maybe you can too as you have had a lot of contact with him. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He's usually pretty busy as his unit is pretty full on at the moment, and the GAR/ACR process can be quite long so I think that that is why he might be reluctant. Plus in some regards it is sometimes a bit subjective about what passes at those levels. Christmas stand-down might be a good time, but then again maybe not depending on what is going on at the time. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that he was a serviceman. Do you know him in RL? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we went to RMC together among other things. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, have you been spreading the word about Wikipedia among the ADF?? If so, cool! YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Layforce

Hello! Your submission of Layforce at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! orangefreak³³ 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronnie Tod

I believe there are still citation problems with this article. It would be far clearer if citations, footnotes and references sections could be combined. This can be achieved by proper citations whcih will automatically be displayed in the references section.--RadioFan (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In what why are they not proper citations? This is the format used by a quite a few members of the military history project. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If the details in the references section are included in the citations (see WP:CITE), there is no need for both a citations section and a references section. This is far clearer. Also is there a reason why this footnote could nto be incorporated into the article? If you could point out other articles where this style of citation is used, I'd like to review them as well.--RadioFan (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree and find your insistence to not be very helpful to be honest. The sources for the article are quite clear. It uses shortened footnotes, which are included in WP:CITE. This format was one that I adopted after a GA review on an article I was working on. The shortened footnotes style is used by a number of military history contributors. See for instance Henry Wells (general), which is a GA (and one I didn't work on). I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, so the banner can stay if you feel it necessary, but I won't be doing any work to change it. Also, I would suggest you put a message on the Military History talk page if you are considering adding this banner to other articles that you feel you don't like the style of. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is very different from 99% of the articles out there which is why it caught my eye. If you want to remove the tag though, I wont put it back. --RadioFan (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absoutley standard, see WP:CITESHORT, where you're repeatedly referring to different pages of the same book(s), the citations would look horrible if you gave the full detials of the book every single time. On the issue of sourcing though, in terms of [{WP:RS]], you'll probably be better off replacing a lot of the references to the unithistories site by going directly to the London Gazette from which they've taken their info. David Underdown (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Will do — I was being lazy. I was just trying to get rid of a redlink without doing too much work (it is 3am here). Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to jump in, I agree that this is a standard form of footnoting. All the articles I've nominated for FA and A class status use this, and it hasn't attracted any complaints at all. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, Nick. I thought maybe I was missing something policy-wise. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Ronnie Tod, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. David Underdown (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, David. Thanks for that. You've done some really good work expanding that, so most of the credit should be yours. Well done! — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I put myself down as a co-author-but I'd never of heard of him in the first place but for you. Having read te full recommendation for his DSO and the Bar in particualr though, I couldn't let him languish there as a stub though. Do your sources haev anything on Foxforce (British Army)? I guess it's another ad hoc grouping like Layforce named after its commander, I've linked it here, adn in Tod's article in this way, because plain Foxforce is currently a redirect, but if we could put something together, we could probably "usurp" that. There may be something in Julian Thompson's history of the Royal Marines, I'll have a look at my copy when I have the chance. David Underdown (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately nothing in my sources about Foxforce that I can find, unfortunately. The St George Saunders book might have something, but for some reason he hasn't included an index, so it makes life difficult. I've ordered a couple of books, which might have something but they won't arrive for a month apparently as they are coming from the UK. Tried to get Messenger's book (per the A class review for No. 3 Commando), but no dice. The place that had it wouldn't ship out to the colonies, apparently...:-( AustralianRupert (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't track down that particular Messenger book easily either, work library http://www.library.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/x/o/o/49 has several others of his, but not that one. David Underdown (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had a better look at Saunders, he briefly mentions Foxforce (pp. 262-263). He's very sketchy on the details but it seems it was formed sometime in September and disbanded sometime in October 1944. Made up of No. 9 Cdo, who were brigaded with a number of Greek units including the Greek Sacred Regiment. 1 October landed at Poros; 12 Oct landed Piraeus. Marched into Athens and then disbanded. That's pretty much it. Might not be enough for a stub. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could eb, perhpas we just need a round-up article to cover any of the various commando/special forces/raiding groups taht had shortlived existences, but not long enough to make an article on each of them individually stand-up? Ah well, back to keeping an eye on teh cricket score, looking like a bit more of a match now... David Underdown (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching it right now...and am close to tears! I really think they should have played a specialist spinner, but I guess currently Australia's batting is the problem. Damn another wicket...— AustralianRupert (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oz breweries

It may not fall within your field of interest, but I have recently been sidetracked into List of breweries in Australia and learned all sorts of things that I found interesting. (e.g. with the exception of Coopers Brewery, ALL major Oz breweries are owned by the Foster's Group or Lion Nathan, and Lion Nathan is 46% owned by that well-known Australian company, Kirin. i.e. If it ain't bad enough that the Chinese own our coal, steel and electricity, the Japanese own about quarter of our breweries!) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I actually didn't know that. I guess that is the definition of "soft power" after all! What if they were to stop production, the country would be on its knees in a week! I jest, of course, but it is also sort of serious. In many regards the "defeated" powers from the Second World War have done quite well out of the post-war settlement. Of course there were many factors in this (Cold War and "lasting peace" issues) and it is not necessarily a bad thing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Durnford-Slater

On August 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Durnford-Slater, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for No. 3 Commando

On August 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 3 Commando, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving two DYKs on the same day! Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg

An editor has taken the previous deletion discussion concerning this image to a deletion review. If you would like to comment the DRV discussion is here. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: James Loy (United States Navy)

Thanks for the advice, I'll keep it in mind. Packerfansam (talk) 22 August 2009

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I'm not really a regular aviation contributor, though. I sometimes get involved in military aviation biographies through the Military History project, but probably not really enough to get involved in the contest. Looks like a good idea, though. I like how you've included a number of aspects including assessments, peer reviews and DYKs as well as creating new articles, etc. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Layforce

On August 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Layforce, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Klis Fortress

Hi, AustralianRupert! Thank you for assessment of Klis Fortress. Well, GregorB who has some knowledge of the subject, has fixed some grammar errors in the article. Should I put the article back on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests or should I fill a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kebeta. I'd suggest putting in the request for a formal copy edit, then you can be sure that the issues are resolved before requesting another assessment. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spacing of inline citations

Although you state that there is a rule of thumb that there be at least one cite per para, you are the only assessing editor I have come across who seems to use that rule.

I feel that an assessing editor, or other interested reader, should be able to click on a cite and verify the chunk of information they have just read. I also feel that doing this para by para is tedious and unnecessary.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, George. The criteria are very subjective, hence open to interpretation, so I understand your concerns. If you feel that I have made an error in assessment, or have been too harsh, I have no dramas with you requesting a second opinion. Also, if you wish I will not assess your articles in the future. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Rupert, my good fellow, I have a great deal of respect for your editorial talents. There is only this single point of contention betwixt us, this matter of citation spacings. I have started noting on the Talk page of articles when I have successfully cited a source for every fact in the bio. I also mark up in the article text when citations seem to be needed. My version of balance and fair play. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, George. If you mention all that on the talk page (as you have done), it can probably be accepted on good faith. My policy is usually to overcite, but that's my preference. I'm going to take a break from assessing and most other wikiwork for a while anyway. Things will be busy in real life soon, as I will be relocating my family from Canberra to Brisbane next week, so will have to focus on that/them for a while. Army does most of the work, but still it is a busy time. I'll probably get back into things at a reduced capacity at the end of September once we start to get settled. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

G'day, mate, I hope your move is not one that can be compared to the effects of a minor house fire. I had enough difficulty moving from the first to the third floor not too long ago.

I have since discovered that your "rule of thumb" about citations is actually a Wikipedia requirement. That doesn't change my feelings about what I expressed, but it does prove to me that it is not just your little bugaboo. I hope there are no hard feelings between us; certainly, there are none on my side.

Thank you for resizing the graphic in Flavio Baracchini. I'll follow up on your tip, and see what I can learn on my own.

I wish you and yours much happiness in your new home, and I wish you the best of luck in your new assignment.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, George. The move is pretty much done. Sitting in the hotel right now cooling my heels, so to speak (they put us up for a couple of days in Canberra before we leave, but I have to go back to the house tomorrow to make sure the removalists have done their job). No hard feelings at all. People have different opinions, that's life. Anyway, take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I hope you do not think I am not pounding upon a deceased equine here, but...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, under Sourcing and citation states:

"There is no numerical requirement for a particular density of citations or for some predetermined number of citations in an article..."

How, then, can the Assessment Section require at least one citation for every paragraph in an article, without contradicting the style guide?

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Samuel H. Starr - peer review

Samuel H. Starr was going to be just a stub article then I found all this nifty information including scans of several letters of his. I got carried away and it is now at B class. I have asked for a peer review on the talk page prior to GA review. Any help appreciated as always. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Edits to HMAS Sydney (R17)

Thank you very much for the edits made to HMAS Sydney (R17) over the past couple of days. No matter how many times I read the relevant guidelines, I can never seem to get the hang of all the horizontal lines. -- saberwyn 07:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, at all. The article looks very good, by the way. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ronnie Tod

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronnie Tod, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Independent companies

As per the discussion at WT:MILHIST, I've started a deletion discussion for the 722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Please come and give your opinion. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkheader

Hi. What's exactly the reason to add talkheader in this one? This doesn't seem to be a hi-visible page and no discussion is going on. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No real reason, just seems a standard thing to put on a talk page, given that its called a talk header. That way if anyone wants the links, they've got them. If you don't like it, I've got no dramas with you removing it, but it wasn't put there to offend or anything like that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just suggest that you read instructions in {{Talk header}}. There is a permanent debate in which pages this template should be placed. Certainly not in all of them. Mainly pages that have hi traffic or the are the targets of a lot of off topic comments are supposed to have this template. I know its name is a bit confusing. Have a nice day/night and happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. While I disagree with the reasoning, I'll stop adding them then as I'm not one to go against concensus. I would like to say, though, that it seems like just another example of how something one would assume would be non-controversial is made controversial by the wiki community. How are new users supposed to find the policies regarding talkpage etiquette if they are only added to a page after someone causes trouble? — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about that. Apart from the welcome messages, we already have the message that appereas after someone tries to edit the talk page. This message could be expanded probably. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for No. 6 Commando

On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 6 Commando, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rating of Alaska Road Commission

Thanks for rating same. I noticed you left one of the B subrates (B5) blank so I took the liberty of making it a YES as well: [1] ... the article does have a map of transport circa 1920 as well as a number of images, although it doesn't have an infobox. (do you think it should have one similar to Army_Corps_of_Engineers, which it belonged to while it was in the Army?) If you disagree with my change please feel free to revert me. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Lar. Sorry, I'm an idiot. I meant to put 'yes' there, but for some reason left it blank. Thanks for the fix. Not sure about the infobox. It probably doesn't need it really, as it is well supported with images. That's just my opinion, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I think it's all good to go then. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For your information

I put all facts I can find in an article, and cite as many sources as possible. If you find some area of a flier's life is not covered, it is because I didn't find anything on it. If I do stumble across something else later, I will return and amend the article.

If you keep this in mind, you will see that addressing requests for such information to me is futile. However, it might be very handy to nudge some later editor that has that very info.

You might want to consider addressing your requests to all and sundry; I believe it will be more helpful that way.

Best regards. I hope your new assignment works out well for you.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, George. No worries, I'll keep that in mind. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Packerfansam

Hey duder. I've found some more articles he created which look non-notable through his contributions. I'm prodding some now, but any more help would be appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Skinny. I found a few more that had been prodded and have added them to the list. To be honest, I hate doing this because many of the subjects are posthumous recipients, but at the end of the day it is not fair to users if the rules are not evenly enforced. Some of the subjects may be notable if more information is added, but currently they are mainly just the official citations by themselves and as they relate to awards below the MOH, they are therefore not automatically notable. I am sort of hoping that they might be improved so they don't have to be deleted and I'd help if I could, but obviously don't have the sources (and I suspect that they don't exist). — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think they'll exist either. I've found that people don't usually write any Reliable Sources for anyone under MoH or VC winners, unless they're of a high rank or do something else that's notable. I've proposed an addition to WP:MILMOS#NOTE on WT:MILHIST if you'd like to take a look - I think it would help out with these cases and any others that come up. Skinny87 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested, there's currently a discussion at this page about these articles, with the article creator and another use claiming that these articles are notable, as are recipients of the Navy Cross and Marine Corps Brevet Medal. Skinny87 (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll take a look. I'm a bit busy in RL at the moment, so I can't contribute to the level I'd like at the moment. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Waziristan Campaign

I see you created the article Waziristan Campaign which covers

1. Waziristan campaign 1919–1920, operations conducted by the British and Indian Armies in Waziristan in 1919–20
2. Waziristan campaign 1936–1939, operations conducted by the British and Indian Armies in Waziristan in 1936–39

I have come across this [2] WAZIRISTAN CAMPAIGN. DESPATCHES PUBLISHED. SUCCESS OF OPERATIONS. Reprinted from The Civil and Military Gazette of May 5th, 1918. It seems to be an earlier campaign have you heard of it? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. No, that's a new one for me. The two sources I have really only mention the two I've listed, possibly because they resulted in clasps for the IGSM (I think). It seems likely that there were operations in Waziristan over a number of periods, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest Dept

Just a brief note to remind all entrants that, under the new arrangements, they are encouraged to self-score (but not self-assess) their own entries.

There's also a discussion about a new points scale over on the Coordinators talk page. This deals with some of the anomalies raised elsewhere and as ever comments there would be very welcome.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Liberia, Round 2

Hi AustralianRupert, hope you're well. Would you mind doing a quick review of the article again and telling me what you think needs tweaking before I put it up for A-class again? Maybe you could leave your comments on the talkpage. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 22:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. Yes, feeling pretty good at the moment, thanks. Very busy in real life, but I'd be happy to take a look. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that was really helpful. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. Good luck with the review when it comes. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:52nd Australian Infantry Battalion (Victorian Scottish Regiment) 1914.jpg

File:52nd Australian Infantry Battalion (Victorian Scottish Regiment) 1914.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:52nd Australian Infantry Battalion (Victorian Scottish Regiment) 1914.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:52nd Australian Infantry Battalion (Victorian Scottish Regiment) 1914.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Patrick Joseph Bugden VC.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Patrick Joseph Bugden VC.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:8th Brigade (Australia) infantry school map reading class, France 1918.jpg is now available as Commons:File:8th Brigade (Australia) infantry school map reading class, France 1918.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Walter Ernest Brown VC.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Walter Ernest Brown VC.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:14th Light Horse regiment Homs, Syria December 1918.jpg is now available as Commons:File:14th Light Horse regiment Homs, Syria December 1918.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another company level deletion

Saw you were interest in the earlier discussion. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 20:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gurkha

It seems that we have mongolgurkha trying to push his povs. I would greatly appreciate any advice or assistance you could offer.

Gorkhali (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'll take a look, but to be honest I don't know much about the more specific aspects of the Gurkha religion, origins, etc. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 23:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 61st Battalion (Australia)

Hello! Your submission of 61st Battalion (Australia) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
Message added 20:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cologne War FAC Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Cologne war FAC archive1's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the FA mavens won't like the  Done template. they want us to strike.  :( But thanks for support.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 61st Battalion (Australia)

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 61st Battalion (Australia), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Slater's Knoll

Hi, AustralianRupert.

I have just finished the B-class review (Milhist), and now return it to you to see if you agree with my so-called improvements. I am reasonably sure of most, but some may have been simply American vs. Commonwealth style issues. Specifically, I have made one word of several compound words (e.g. counterattack for counter attack, northeast for north east or north-east, and so on). If this is merely a style issue, feel free to revert, and I will not be embarrassed, nor will I alter the B rating.

I would sorely like to see a map, if one is available, and a poor map is better than no map at all. This is a suggestion that I make every time I get the opportunity, and it is not aimed solely at your article; as it is not required by the Laws of Wikipedia, it has no force, but I hope you will agree and will join me in my campaign.

Cheers, PKKloeppel (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, thanks for that. What you've done is fine. It needed a good edit. Thanks for the review too. I will look at what I can do about the map. Map drawing was my worst subject at Duntroon, though, so I can't promise much. I'm not sure about the copyright status of the maps in the official history, either, so I might be able to scan one of those, but then again maybe I can't. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Gorski A-class review

1. Can you strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Did you review military issues in his political career (Search for the word Vietnam).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Did you look over this other military content? I can't tell.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked over it. I've reworded the military career section to deal with the issues as I see them. Feel free to revert if you don't agree with the changes. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of War Heroes

Long time no see. Hubert Humphrey was fond of saying "If you don't like the results of the system, don't give up. Get involved and change the system." As you can see, that's what I'm trying to do here. At this point, I could honestly care less about my father's article, but I found the arguments that being a war hero was not "notable" deeply offensive. Therefore, I'm trying to shake the trees a little bit and see if we can't hash through this mess a little better. I'd appreciate your help. WP:N Rapier1 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rapier. It is not so much a case of the project deeming Silver Star recipients as not being worthy individuals, but that the project has come to hold the opinion that a person who receives the award as being automatically notable as per WP:N. As such if there is significant coverage of the person, then a Silver Star recipient may well warrant inclusion, however, without this then they possibly don't. This is different to whether or not they are deserving of respect as soldiers or as human beings. I think most of the members in the military history project have the appropriate respect for Silver Star recipients and indeed all those that serve whether they receive higher level awards or not, however, a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. In regards to the two current AFDs relating to Silver Star recipients, I've decided to stay out of the debate. In this case it is difficult to know what is the right answer. I used to vote keep for SS recipients, but the project concensus was against this. I can see that in some regards the two ladies have significant coverage (although a lot of it seems like it is probably just news media) and the claims are somewhat unique. However, they are just as deserving as any other Silver Star recipient, so when do we say that a "first" is no longer notable in terms of determining automatic inclusion? For example the first female to receive a Silver Star (Mary Roberts) might be notable, but is the fifth (Hestier) and sixth (Brown)? (It is perhaps a stretch to say they are notable because a long time has passed since the fourth (WWII 1944) and fifth (Iraq 2005)). Also is the first female to receive an Army Commendation Medal notable? When do we say that a "first" is not notable, it is just that somone had to be the first. Also when is something considered to be WP:NOTNEWS and when is it not? Also when does something become WP:ONEEVENT and when is it not? I'm starting to get a bit confused by many of these policies, hence why I'm choosing mainly to stay out of the debate. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1848

Thank you for your comments at the Military History Assesssment talk page on the articles around these topics. I do appreciate it very much, it is nice to get words of encouragement and we know it is nowhere near perfect yet. They would probably be assessed as start class, depending on your criteria, but might even stay as a stub by your standards. The thing is to get it on the radar so others with more expertise can edit it, since they can work with reasonably good confidence that all the information from "the horse's mouth" (the Hungarian, or we think in one case the Polish) is there. Frankly I think someone decided to create the skeleton for this topic and then got bored of it very quickly. So, we have done the five articles that did not exist and are now translating the others that did, there are eight in total.

Of course that is all just a start, but on the way we do the biographies, geography etc etc so slowly, slowly we can piece it together into the larger overview articles, and a lot of the stuff, by then, will already be there. i.e. very much a bottom-up approach to this one. Partly this comes from our (my girlfriend User:Monkap and I work together on these) conviction that if we just plunged in at one of the "top level" articles it would not stand a chance right now, even though our changes would be improvements, they would get deleted straighta way by disgruntled editors. So, we are hovering under the radar, so to speak.

Anyway, to businesss: In a map I have just anglicised, File:Jellasics EN.jpg, there is a chap Palatine Stephen who is Archduke Stephen, Palatine of Hungary. I am not familiar with the word "Palatine" except as a street name, of course I can look it up, but I would judge my vocabulary as being pretty good and if I don't know it, I doubt others will. Would you agree there? Would you have any suggestions how to put it?

I totally agree with you about military terms and the likely audience for this, I imagine, would be a mix of people interested in battles etc. generally, and people interested in Hungarian history generally, so we needn't be too too technical. It would be great, though, if there were part of the military history project, people one could go to on these kind of lexical matters. In one article from the twelfth century they are firing bazookas, which seems to me unlikely, but without the original I don't know what it was they were firing. I also had problems with "cannon" in Battles of Latrun, this was from French, they insisted it should be "cannon" which seemed a bit outdated for a twentieth century war, I translated as "mortar" but it got changed back. This kind of thing happens with translation generally, but is exacerbated by the technical vocab. that the military (like many other fields) employs, and some kind of "military dictionary" or at least "phrase book" would be extremely useful. Of course that still leaves room for the translator's judgment, but would be a start.

Totally agree and understand about the colloquial vs. technical use of army, troop, legion etc and it is exacerbated by the elegant variation; in context it more often seems these terms are just interchanged to avoid repetition.

Thank you very much for your encouragement, it is very nice, for a change, to find a project where people are enthusiastic and willing to help other editors (whose interest in the military aspect of things may be only incidental) instead of just stamping over them telling them how shit it is, as happens at other projects i.e. they forget people come to an article for different reasons and with different expectations.

Very best wishes Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No wories at all, happy to help where I can. In regards to your question about the map, I couldn't get that file to load for some reason to view what you are viewing so I'm not quite sure of what you are trying to achieve. Sorry. Anyway, some basic advice that might help: if you are using an obscure term in text, sometimes the best solution is to wikilink it to aid in clarification. For example, you might wikilink it to Palatine of Hungary. Another suggestion might be to add a note below the map clarifying the term, or if it is not germane to the topic at hand, just dropping the term altogether and using only those that relate specifically in that instance, or those that might be easily recognisable or understood. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've rehashed the Archduke and added Infobox Military person, dates etc etc. It would seem that this came from German WP, as it has German templates and I am not very good at German but I know it when I see it. I think you are quite right about linking Palatine, and I think I already did when rehashing it, but if not I will. I also tend to link Major general and lieutenant colonel and so forth, though again I get the heebie-jeebies because of course these may not have the same sense from then as for now. I kinda trust readers to decide if it makes any sense. For the same reason, I have not linked for example Austrian Army or Turkish Army cos they will tell you about the modern Austrian or Turkish armies which is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition.

Assuming you are Australian, I wish you happy summer solstice, you bastard. It is bloody cold here but clear and sunny. Never mind, our days will soon be getting longer and yours shorter. To my credit, I complained at WIkipedia Signpost on using "fall" (see WP:SEASON) as being Not Very Good and that in Australasia it is spring. I think the preferred term on WP is Oceania, but that sometimes seems too broad a term for me.

Very best wishes, g'day Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I made a template at {{Hungarian Revolution of 1848 participant}} and all the articles use that. A bit of a mouthful I know, but I am not happy with a few of the flags, but at least then once we get consensus it only has to be changed in one place. Russia is a bit iffy because it is the Imperial flag of 1914-1918, Croatia is the modern flag which must be wrong, and Italy is the modern flag and must be wrong because Italy didn't even exist then. All these came from the existing nascent articles, so I have precedent in using them, but they are just plain wrong and I can't find better (but I am useless at searching for these things). Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the ERYX page

Thanks for taking the time to help with the ERYX page and removing the white space. As you have probably noticed, I am sort of new at this stuff. Again, thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No dramas, thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with the WP:MILHIST project tagging, at Portal talk:Biological warfare. Much appreciated, Cirt (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude

I'm referring to this edit summary. I'm not all that familiar with the coding for those sections because I haven't yet had much of a need to touch them. Maybe instead of just being bitey, you might try assuming that someone, newbie or experienced editor, just doesn't know that particular coding. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who writes at your standard hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Have a good one. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

What a busy lad you are!
I hope you had a great Xmas, and Best Wishes for 2010.
I've discovered that I may (repeat, may) be spending some time in CBR (probably Russell) in 2010 - maybe I can buy you a coffee! (More when I know more.)
And congratulations on your wiki-recognition. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate, Merry Christmas to you to. I've just relocated to Brisbane myself. I hope everything works out for you in your new loc and you can keep things real up on the Hill. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lebaudy Patrie MilHist assessment

Thanks for your support on this one. Unfortunately it timed out, so I re-nominated it (on 19 December). If and when you have time, could you have another look? Thanks! --TraceyR (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Awarded by Rapier1 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC) for showing kindness and understanding, and for offering helpful suggestions, during deletion discussion

Moved to talk page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Just seen that prod you set up for the US Army signaller. Medal citations are funny things, aren't they? Similar exploits in the British Army have got the VC - am I right in remembering that? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I believe that you are correct on this one. Slightly off topic, a little while back I read an account of a young Australian officer (I forget the man's name now, which is much to my discredit) in Vietnam singlehandedly destroying a number of Viet Cong bunkers with 66s. He was nommed for a Victoria Cross and in the end received nothing (all I could find in the Honours and Awards database was a 15 year long service medal, much later). Strange. Anyway, of course the prod is not a comment on the achievement of Sergeant Burr—which does indeed sound to me like something worthy of higher recognition—but more just trying to support the project's concensus. Indeed, I kind of found it painful to do, and may not prod again! Anyway, take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Milhist tag

Mil hist of Asia - might be one of your shorter lifed tags - I specifically did not tag it as I have every intention of putting it up for Afd as soon as possible in the new year - my withdrawal of the afd does not endorse the idea of a cat like that in any way - it is as problematic as the article Military history of Asia SatuSuro 04:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Apologies for not clarifying that in the main entry at the mil hist noticeboard SatuSuro 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Suro. I hope I didn't step on your toes with tagging it. I put the tag on it because I felt that at least that way it might get some traffic within the Mil hist project. That will either mean that the article/list might get improved, or concensus might be built up about what to do with it. Anyway, hope you have a happy and safe New Years! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate - the same to you - pity about the bloody 'asia' continent creators - and the followons into milhist and all - I think they had thought it was a good idea at the time - I honestly think its time has come to be broken down - lets see what happens in the new year ... SatuSuro 07:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For fixing my shocking markup and typos on Battle of Maryang San. Anotherclown (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, mate. Cheers for that! — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Review comments

Would it be too much trouble for you to revisit your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Osan? The review has passed its time-deadline and is about to be closed. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks remover

G'day mate, no problems, I enjoy reading your articles and you put alot of expertise and hardwork into them. I think I am getting better with time with article creation and quality and have a wide area of interest that sometimes is distracting but also means if I am bored I can switch tasks. I still do not think I am not on par with you in terms of quality of my articles but as time and new references are bought, I am sure I will improve. Thanks for recognizing my efforts, it is appreciated. If you ever need a hand with any articles or redlinks let me know. Regards (Cam) Newm30 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Peverell Hichens

Hi As you did the B Class for Hitchens, I thought you might consider looking over the A Class review. There seems to be a lack of reviewers at the moment and I would appreciate your comments. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. It looks very good. I've left a couple of comments on the review page, otherwise happy to support. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debates

Would you mind contributing your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment

I left a message with a warning that any future edits like the one you highlighted will result in a block. Our editor seems to be new, so I am trying to be generous since we all get moody on the articles we edit from time to time, but I will use the block tool if this continues on vandalism grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I appreciate your input. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. I'll be keeping an eye on the article for the next couple of weeks just to be safe; if any vandalism occurs during that time, you can report it to WP:AIV. Note when you do that the editors was warned that any further vandalism would result in a block since your problem editor has already been warned. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with 153rd Infantry Regiment (United States)

Thanks for the work you did on 153rd Infantry Regiment (United States), especially helping with the citations. If you have time I would appreciate the same help on 206th Field Artillery Regiment (United States)!

Hi, Damon. Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. Overall you have a couple of articles going at the moment that I think have some very good potential. Keep up the good work! — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49)

I changed the Military history project box in Talk:Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49) from South Asia Task force to Southeast Asia, hope you don't mind Sodacan (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, cheers. Sorry if I mucked it up. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel

Could you take another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel? I've tried to fix what you noted (with the exception of the footnotes you mentions, which I have no clue how to fix). I really appreciate your help thus far - it has been extremely generous.

Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Hi GregJackP. I've added some more comments to the ACR now. Also I've left a message on the census template talk page, asking if anyone knows how to fix the issue with the auto date linking. Hopefully someone will offer asssistance. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you take another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel? I think I have everything fixed now. Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Done. Looks good now in my opinion, so I've added my support. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan Peer Review

I'm about to fix the dab problems and saw you are editing now too. I don't want us to be trying to submit at the same time so I'll wait for an OK from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine79 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. I'm done for the night now. Just go for it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta

1964 list of wrecks - I am having the time of my life on wp shipwrecks (not) - and saw that was the voyager year - as for milhist internals - didnt know there wasnt a list - geeze youse guys are eccentric SatuSuro 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. A little different, I know. The project also doesn't support C class. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - useful to know SatuSuro 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

Howdy. Thanks again for your help with both Maryang San and Kapyong... I can't believe I missed some of those refs. Both those articles are fairly mature (one has been up for nearly two months and through most of an ACR without that being picked up). Kapyong even got nearly 10,000 hits from a DKY and noone picked it up. That tool is so awesome I have run it over some of my other large articles and found both my A class articles (Battle of Bita Paka and Operation Coburg) had a pile of unconsolidated refs too! So cheers again. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. Hopefully Kapyong can get up too. Are you working on anything else before you go away? — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - currently writing Battle of Suoi Bong Trang offline (1RAR and US 1st Brigade Feb 1966). Got a bit done so far this weekend and hope to chop out something by tomorrow night or early next week. It will only be a modest B at best but I think I can hack something out. Not sure if I could be bothered with a DKY this time (probably nothing all that interesting I could use as a hook anyway). Kapyong did very well at DKY (I was a bit surprised). How about yourself? Anotherclown (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been very slack recently, no new articles for a while. Mainly just cleaning up other articles. I'm completly rewriting 7th Battalion (Australia) offline at the moment. Currently it only discusses World War I, but I'm expanding to include more detail, interwar years and World War II. I'm trying to write all the predecessor units of the currently existing Reserve infantry battalions. So 7th Bn links in with 8th/7th RVR. I've got the WWI history of the 7th from the library, but can't find its WWII history yet. I have to get my skates on, as come next week I'll be very busy and probably won't get anything done on Wiki for quite some time. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We're both going to get the DTs I think... no wiki for 6 months... all my articles are going to get smashed by IPs and other goobers... Anotherclown (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming coordinator elections

In about two weeks the coordinator election will take place, and I decided to leave a message here on behalf of the current coordinator tranche to urge you to run for coordinator for this upcoming tranche. We feel you would make an outstanding coordinator for the project, and it is our belief that you would easily obtain a spot should you decide to add your name to the running. You are, of course, under no obligation to run, but an editor of your caliber would be a welcome addition to the force. For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. Thanks very much for the vote of confidence. It is certainly something I've considered, but I'm not sure that I could give it my all at the moment, though. I've just gone back to uni after being discharged from the Army due to my hip injury, so life is pretty hectic at the moment. I'll still try to check in every now and again, but for the next six months to a year I will not be able to contribute to my previous levels, unfortunately. I certainly appreciate your comments, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Get well soon, and we will look forward to seeing you back to full health and full editing soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Map for Battle of Suoi Bong Trang

Howdy. I have drawn a map for Battle of Suoi Bong Trang, a new article I finished on the weekend. If you're not too busy can you have a look at both the article and the map and let me know what you think? It took about five hours and still looks like a monkey drew it with a crayon between his teeth. Its still probably the best map I have drawn to date (I have made a few efforts in the past for other articles that I never uploaded because they were horrid). Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in, but I think that it looks quite good. The background might be a bit too bright green though. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - I'll see what it can do. I'm limited by both ability and the software I have. I'm using Powerpoint which is not really the tool of choice for cartographers I'm sure! Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Had a quick glance and I'm pretty impressed with the map. The green might be a bit bright as Nick says. It seems to stand out on the page, so if it could be toned down a little. I wonder also with the legend, could the mil symbols be explained as you've done with the colours (the layman doesn't have the Battlebook...)? I've made a view attempts at making some maps myself for some of the Bougainville campaign battles I've written about and failed miserably. Never was any good a map marking. Unfortunately I have "...a complete lack of artistic talent..." (Dargen 2008, np) — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking some more, I'm not sure how the symbols could be explained in the image itself without making it too crowded. Perhaps they could be explained on the image description page itself? — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually good point, didn't really think about that for some reason. Hmm will have a think about how to do this. Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a look over the article now and I think it looks in pretty good shape. I made a few tweaks, mainly to the lead, so please take a look and see if you are happy with the changes or not. If not just roll it back. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks to the article too, some good pickups. Ordered refs... wow, sounds like OCD. Actually looks good like that so may be I've got it too! BTW some IP just blanked your user page... but someone already reverted it for you. Wonder what his beef is? Anyway cheers again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Interesting, then he/she/they had a go at some other user page. I guess it means I've been around a bit now and am becoming visible/annoying? Having said that, it's only the second time my user page has been vandalised. Although the first time doesn't really count, as they were pointing out my own stupidity and were correct to do so (an embarrasing typo on the page)...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification of Morris order

In regards to the source, I have no doubt it does say "Morris, not knowing who held Kokoda, recalled them to base" but this is not supported by other sources nor by the situation at Kokoda. Owen was in contact with Port Moresby and the Japanese did not attack and take the airfield until that night. Morris should hve known Kokoda was still in allied hands so why would he disregard Owen's communications and think the airfield may be in Japanese hands? Cheers Wayne (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Wayne. I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure how to handle this one, though. Perhaps a footnote stating that there is a discrepancy between the sources and discussing what the alternate view is? Keogh's work I believe is considered to be reasonably reliable and it was for a long time the source that the Army used to teach officers about the SWPA campaigns. (Indeed, it was still being discussed when I was at Duntroon only a couple of years ago.) Brune's work is more recent, however, so he may have had access to more sources and possibly maybe did not feel bound to spare the reader's sensibilities about such issues (just thinking out loud - I've not read the Brune book, so I don't really know much about it as a source). To be honest, many of the sources seem to contradict each other on some very significant points. What do you think is the best solution? — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible that Owen was told that Morris ordered the return as this would avoid some issues that could affect morale. I have Brunes book so I'll check the source he used for that claim. I recommend you get it as it is impeccably researched with 46 pages dedicated to listing his sources with 7 pages listing people he interviewed, listing their connection to kokoda and date of interview. I'll get back to you. Wayne (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it. An interview with Major Bidstrup, 39th Battalion. According to Bidstrup he was on one of the transports along with Lieut. Lovett, the Battalions Adjutant, and the second platoon of D company. He details how he could see the Australians clearing the airstrip to allow them to land as they circled but despite a "severe verbal exchange" between Lovett and the pilot the pilots refused to land because they were worried the Japanese would attack while they were on the ground (pages 102-103 of Brunes book). That Australians in control of the field was visable to the pilots, along with the verbal exchange seems to indicate no order to return was issued. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Wayne. I've tweaked the sentence so that it allows the reader to decide the reasons, and includes both views in the footnote. If you get a chance, can you take a look and see what you think? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. Check it out and if you prefer your version I have no problem with you reverting. Wayne (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy AustralianRupert's Day!

User:AustralianRupert has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as AustralianRupert's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear AustralianRupert! Peace, Rlevse 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that, Rlevse. That made my day, so to speak... ;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 7th Battalion (Australia)

On February 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 7th Battalion (Australia), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Conscription and the CMF

I read your article on the Australian Army Reserve with great interest. I have a comment to make on the effects of conscription on the CMF in the period 1965-72, although this is a personal anecdote with very little value to Wikipedia. I was in a CMF battalion in Queensland between 1969 and 1973. I went in as a conscript, but I'd previously spent some time in the Regular Army. The battalion led a pretty relaxed life. Most of the officers were quite old and had been there a long time, and a lot of the ORs were surprisingly old too. Turnover was low - most of them had been there for years. I hesitate to use the word "slack", but training and performance standards were not particularly high. A lot of the weapons and equipment were old and unreliable; when I first joined we still trained with Owen guns and No. 36 grenades, and wore British khaki webbing over our greens. Some of the battalion trucks were Second World War vintage. Before conscription, it was a blokey club for men who liked camping in the bush at weekends and firing weapons at the rifle range.

Conscription brought in a large number of young blokes, all the same age, who on average were brighter and had more education and technical skills than the volunteers. A lot of them very quickly rose to NCO level, and a few went to OCTU and got their First Appointment. Their technical abilities meant that within a few years, specialist areas like the battalion intelligence section, the medics, the cooks, the signallers and the motor mechanics were all filled by conscripts who did those things in their civilian lives. Senior officers and mid-ranks like WO and Staff Sergeant were still held by long-term volunteers - some of them ex-Regular - but by 1972 most of the Corporals, Sergeants and platoon commanders, even a few Captains, were conscripts.

So when conscription ended, the guts fell out of the battalion. On the Monday morning after Gough Whitlam was elected, outside the Q-Store there was a queue of blokes waiting to hand in their kitbags. I stayed on till the end of 1973, and by that time more than half of the NCOs and most of the skilled tradespeople were gone. The battalion was back to the older blokes who liked to camp in the bush.

I assume similar things happened in every CMF unit across the country. I don't know whether this effect of conscription has been widely recognised, or whether the Millar Report understood what had happened in the CMF. I've been very sceptical about the value of conscription ever since, because I've never heard anyone in either military or political circles talk about planning for its end. Peter Bell (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback, Peter. I'm considering reworking the article sometime with a view to taking it to a higher assessment (but currently very busy unfortunately), so will certainly try to incorporate this information if I can. I'd imagine that your experience was very similar to many who served at that time. Off the top of my head, I think Millar does says something about this somewhere. Dayton McCarthy's ADFA thesis (which is now a book) might also. Most of my sources for the article belong to a mate and he's currently serving overseas, so it will probably have to wait until he gets back. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a good one. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in, I've read scholarly books by historians which say exactly the same thing as Peter's very interesting post above. I think that Albert Palazzo's excellent book on the Australian Army's structure might have been one of them and I imagine that this is covered in the book David Horner edited on the RAR. Books on the Army in the Vietnam War normally also remark on the generally high quality of the conscripted soldiers. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that, NIck. I will make sure to look at those sources as well. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Potts

Hi AustralianRupert. I have started adding detail to Arnold_Potts#Kokoda_Track_Campaign, would you mind having a look and giving me an opinion? There is actually quite a lot about Potts in the main Kokoda Track campaign article.

I am setting out to relate the story (as told by Brune<ref>Brune, Peter (2003). A Bastard of a Place: The Australians in Papua. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-74114-403-5. http://books.google.ca/books?id=oWx1oq8RPcQC&lpg=PP1&dq=A%20Bastard%20of%20a%20Place%20%3A%20The%20Australians%20in%20Papua&client=firefox-a&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=true.</ref>) of his leadership in the fighting withdrawal, and follow up with the story of his dismissal, victim of larger forces etc. It's a very good story. Problem is most of it is already embedded through Kokoda Track campaign.

I am aware that the Potts page as I have left it tells half the story, then closes abruptly - I will have to decide smartly whether to continue in this vein or go for a much less ambitious biography. Your thoughts?SpoolWhippets (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, SpoolWhippets. I've taken a bit of a look. It does unbalance the article a bit, but probably not too much. (If the Bougainville campaign can be expanded it would probably fix this issue.) My suggestion is finish writing it how you've set out to, put it up for a peer review and then once it is done it can be pruned back if necessary. I've made a few tweaks, mainly around Manual of Style issues, but it otherwise seems okay. Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will do.SpoolWhippets (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Question - when speaking of a vulnerable position on a battlefield would you describe it as "undefendable" or "indefensible"? Wiktionary has both but the latter is mostly encountered talking about abstract things like ideas. cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say indefensible, personally. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe even "untenable". ChoraPete (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assessing the articles that I requested. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

10th Division (Australia)

Hi, just wondering whether you can point out why the 34th Brigade is see also on this page? Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, not sure myself as it was already there when I got to work on it. I *think* it is because instead of re-raising the 10th Division for the invasion of Japan, when the invasion was cancelled the Army raised the 34th Bde for occupation duties. Does that make sense? — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for the Redlink Remover Barnstar, much appreciated. Do you think a sentence is required after the link or within the article so as to provide a "reason" as there is no reference within the page, to remove any confusion as to why the 34th Brigade is also worth looking at?

P.S. Not sure whether naval military interests you, but I have created the List of ships assigned to the Australia Station. (Cam) Newm30 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that a line in the prose should/could be added to the 10th Div article to include the 34th Bde. Then the "See also" section could be removed and thus it would make sense why it was being linked. Just had a look at the List of ships assigned to the Australia Station. Lots of redlinks there; that should keep you busy for a while! :-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. So far I have created two articles of ships in the list. I have a book with the information on all ships in the book, so will keep me extremely busy. Newm30 (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star

Cheers! I'm really enjoying doing the maps. Please let me know if you pick up any errors or can think of any improvements. Its also very easy for me to make slightly different versions, so bear that in mind. Have a great day SpoolWhippets (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Bougainville campaign enthusiast

Hi, just letting you know I have created an article on 27th Battalion and Soraken. I have also included the battle of Ratsua on the Bougainville campaign box. I am lost while the alexbot new article pages are down. Newm30 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great work. I just saw that you created Bonis Peninsula a little while ago too. I've linked that in one of the battle articles now, too. I've been thinking about creating stubs for the locations in the articles for a while, but don't really have any information. I'm hoping to complete all the redlinks in the campaign box sometime, but suspect the last couple of battles involving the US forces will remain for a while unfortunately. Keep up the good work! — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what your opinion was on whether the following battles on Bougainville should be captured individually or contained in other battles preludes? The battles in question, but not limited to, are Little George Hill, Artillery Hill, Mosigetta, Mawareka, Puriata River, Soraken. Or perhaps these should these be contained in the overarching article Bougainville Campaign or potentially sub-campaign articles e.g. Central Bougainville campaign, Northern Bougainville campaign and South Bougainville campaign? Newm30 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I've been wondering about this myself. Some of the battles are perhaps not notable enough in the scheme of things to have separate articles. Perhaps the best way would be to expand the parent Bougainville campaign article to include a little bit on each of the main engagements, including ones like Little George, Artillery Hill etc. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RE Orris S. Ferry

Thank you for noticing that! I have corrected the error. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Italian divisions template

Hi I believe the template opens automatically when the article is viewed ? but yes it would be better closed. By the way well done in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/March 2010 hope you get in. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Thanks. Regarding the template, I'm not sure why but for some reason I can't get it to collapse on the individual articles. I've tried adding "state=collapse" to the template as it appears on the individual articles, but that doesn't seem to work. It works if I add it to the actual template itself, though, so that is what I've done. Thus the template will be automatically collapsed on all articles when they load and readers can just click the "show" button if they wish to view. Are you okay with this? If not please feel free to revert. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No that fine, would have done it myself but did not know how --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jack Harman

I've added some info to the intro of this article. I have to admit, introductions aren't my strong point, so if this isn't good enough I'd be very glad if you could give me some further pointers. And just call me Gaia if you like. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gaia, I've expanded the lead a little bit more. Please take a look and tweak anything you don't agree with. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Thanks a lot! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all. Happy to help. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New articles

Hi, just thought you would like to know I have created 21st Battalion (Australia), Battle of the Coconut Grove and Koiari Raid. Hope to be able to bring up all US battles in Bougainville to at least start asap. Newm30 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work, more redlinks taken care of! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Newm30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Pyongtaek

I have responded to all of your concerns in this review. —Ed!^(talk) 02:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

John Perkins

Thanks for all the feedback. Really appreciated it. --Corneredmouse (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all, happy to help. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin Mobile Force

Some more references, using National Library's digitalisation of newspapers. Darwn Mobile Force newspaper articles Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's an interesting tool. Never come across it before (shame on me!), but thanks very much for that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the
Military history Project,
March 2010—October 2010

Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded well done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations AustralianRupert, and thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Tom, Jim and Steve. I look forward to working with you all this term. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, you've earned it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. I look forward to working with you for the next six months, at least. – Joe N 13:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps & congratulations

Hi - congratulations on your election as coordinator. Also - I have just been dropping in some detail maps to your Bougainville battle articles. Let me know if they are OK, or if I have missed anything out. Also for future notice - is it OK etiquette to just plonk them into the article or should I be uploading them then notifying the main editor of the article (in this case you) so you can put it in as you see fit? cheers SpoolWhippets (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. Those maps are excellent additions. Regarding adding them, on anything I've worked on or written, I'm fine with you just adding them in as you see fit. For other articles I'd suggest just putting a message on the talk page stating your intent to add a different map and asking for opinions. If no one responds after a few days, just be bold and add them in. That's my take, anyway. I'd only do this for articles that are B class or beyond, if its Start class and there is no clear main contributor (or little recent activity on the article), it would normally be fairly non controversial just to be bold and make the changes without notification. Cheers. Keep up the good work! — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Ta.SpoolWhippets (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Task Forces

That's very kind of you AR, but don't worry, you beat me fair and square (by seconds) to the last slot! In all seriousness though, I'll still keep an eye on the task force page and I can't imagine anyone will mind my helping out if I can. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. I've shoved myself in there but if you want to take it back feel free to bump me down to the support slot. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

William needs you

		William Windsor needs help!
		I am trying to bring the article William Windsor (goat) up to good article status; as you previously helped, I wondered if you might have time to look at it again, and perhaps help improve it. All contributions welcome. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ►  15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (No, this is not an April Fool thing)

 ChzzBot  ►  17:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to help out if I can. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will stop by and take a look for typos etc. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ted T. Tanouye

Hello AustralianRupert! Thanks so much for your kind and helpful analysis. No need to apologize about overkill. I've recently retired from a legal research position with the U.S. Courts so the citation of authority comes naturally. As a first timer I just wasn't sure what was appropriate. I've addressed your suggestions and added some additional documentation, perhaps too much. Just let me know. Luckily, I'm professionally inclined towards the retention of any and all research materials, so working these cites back in was not much trouble. Thanks again for your assistance and your encouragement. --Mdunn30 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mdunn30. Looks good to me. I've re-assessed as B class. Good work. The next step if you are wanting to take it further is a peer review, which could give you ideas for taking it to a Good Article or A-class assessment. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I do appreciate your patience. As a novice at this, I hope you will indulge me a question. Is peer review something that I should do? Or would it be making more of my modest contribution than it deserves? Feel free to be as candid as you think necessary. I respect your opiniion. --Mdunn30 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Peer review is open for everyone and any article can be submitted to it (stubs all the way through to Featured articles). It is just a forum where you ask what others in the project think of an article and how it might be improved further. Certainly, I wouldn't think that anyone would feel you were making more of the contribution than deserved (although I think it is a decent article). I can fully understand your reluctance as a new editor, though. I'd recommend it as the next step with the article, but only if you were wanting to take it to a higher assessment than B class. Such higher assessments would be GA, A or FA, which require a formalised process to be undertaken and are more stringent than a B class assessment. Perhaps if you take a look at some of the other articles listed in the peer review section, and see what comments they've elicited, that might help you decide whether or not it is something you wish to undertake. If you decide that you don't wish to do so, there are many more stubs or start-class articles on Wikipedia that you might like to consider working. You can find similar articles to the one you've worked on by clicking through the categories on the bottom of the article. Also the Military history project has 48 task forces, some of which might be of interest to yourself.Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Let me look around at some other articles (and accompanying comments)and get a better feel for the terrain. I can make a better decision if I know a little more about the process. Regardless of my ultimate decision, I can honestly say that it has been a pleasant labor so far, made doubly so by your patient assistance and advice. I'll be in touch. Best regards. --Mdunn30 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

problem with a template

Rupert, do you know how to make the convert template {{convert}} be more precise? It's showing that 2 km = 1 mile which it doesn't. I've tried fiddling by using the precision nomenclature, but I cannot get it right. The Battle of Dürenstein (under battlefield site) has this problem. Also, thanks for reading Mount Saint Peter's Church.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ruth. Interesting. Take a look at these variations below (you will need to hit the Edit button to look at the different mark up codes used):

2 kilometres (1.2 mi)

2 kilometers (1 mi) (currently the one used in Durenstein)

2 kilometers (1.2 mi)

1.2 miles (1.9 km)

Regarding the one on Battle of Durenstein, I think the issue is the '0', which I think tells it to round the number to the nearest whole mi. Maybe if you knock that out of it, that might fix it? No worries about Mt St Peter's Church. I'm interested to see what the students come up with. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks. That fixed it. You might take a look at the article on Evolution of Timpani in the 18th and 19th centuries. It's very good, although he hasn't added enough citations yet. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you go to Wikipedia:School and university projects/Shaping the Modern World SP2010/Paper template and look at "articles edited" there is a list. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruth. I'll take a look at a few of them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Darwin Mobile Force

On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darwin Mobile Force, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Offsite email

Hi Pdfpdf,

Just to let you know, I've sent you an offsite email. I just found your email from December. Apologies for not having replied sooner. Natually, I'll give myself an uppercut. Take care. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as the infamous "they" say: "Better late than never"!

I had a day-trip to Fairbairn last month. I thought I'd be going to Russell and the south-side too, so I got a car. When I returned it, I'd done 8km.

My longer trip seems to perpetually be "next month", though I think it will happen at the end of April, or the funding will turn back into a pumpkin.

BTW: Sometime before the end of May I should be spending a week HQ 1 Div - is that anywhere near you?

I'll eventually reply in more detail by email. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite close to 1 Div. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2 cols

I'm almost embarassed to admit I use IE, so I only EVER see 1 column. One day I must use a different browser to see what 2 cols looks like. Which browser do you use?
I'm sure 2 cols must look OK - I doubt you would have done it if it didn't look OK.
By-the-way, there'll probably be a couple of hundred refs by the time the list becomes semi-stable.
Thanks for your help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Firefox supports the columns function. On IE, the two columns mark up just seems to make the font slightly smaller. Not really sure why. Yeah, it will be huge with all those refs, but ultimately it will be a much better list. Good work so far, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pathfinder Platoon

Thanks I have added a notability tag to the article for now and have tried to find sources for the article which is a bit of a mess. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Take it easy. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Military history of France

Hi there. As you have an analogous GA/GAN, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Military history of France/archive1 please? There is a big stalemate between two editors and nobody else is participating. It is about whether the contents are focussed and cover the nominal topic. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, YellowMonkey. I've added some comments. Not sure if it is exactly what is required, but I don't really have much knowledge of the topic. The article seems quite good to me, although there are quite a few places where I feel a citation is needed (although I do tend to over cite, so maybe I am barking up the wrong tree). — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1‎

Hi again. Can you look at this FAR? I only know about the Indochina stuff, but judging from the stuff in that section, and the generally odd weighting to various things, the content seems to have been put together in an ad hoc way. I think you would know a lot more about the whole geopolitical stuff in there especially the Cold War/Korea/end of WWII etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've taken a look and added some comments. To be honest, the some of geopolitical stuff is "beyond my ken". There are a few issues, though, that need to be addressed IMO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review archiving

In the future, when archiving peer reviews, please remember from the documentation at {{WPMILHIST}} that the proper notation is not peer-review=old but old-peer-review=yes. What you did here results in there being no mention of a peer review in our assessment banner. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, MBK. Sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donald Grant Millard

You have new messages

Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  06:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work on the fixups; thanks  Chzz  ►  04:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. Have a good one. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3rd Recon Proposal

• Thank you Sir for your input, and I do see your points. Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all, happy to help. Good luck with improving the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Order of Saint Hubert

Thanks for your support on that! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, its good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Flight Time Re-Write

• Current working re-write and proposed section "to be" inserted can be seen Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that's probably about the right size in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Final verison, now in main article Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Looks okay to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin?

You can DIY with Dougie and all the other vandal attacks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly thinking about it, but thinking I should wait a bit longer. I probably haven't got the experience yet, though. I'm finding I'm still learn something most days on Wiki. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback!

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah

Those phantom by night airfield creators who havent any idea about tags or categories - you can have them ;) SatuSuro 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It keeps me off the street, at least. :-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:o - yeah as for the southeast asian taskforce- there must a whole minefield of potential stubs no-one has even contemplated yet - I know a stash of war-time (ie 2WW) british intelligence folders at my old uni - http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/search~S1?/Xsurabaya&Go=+go+&searchscope=1&SORT=A/Xsurabaya&Go=+go+&searchscope=1&SORT=A&SUBKEY=surabaya/1%2C42%2C42%2CB/frameset&FF=Xsurabaya&Go=+go+&searchscope=1&SORT=A&41%2C41%2C that would knock the socks if i ever get inspired :( SatuSuro 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If I ever had the hours in the day :( http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/search~S1?/tSpecial+report+(Allied+Geographical+Section.+Sout/tspecial+report+allied+geographical+section+southwest+pacific+area+++66/-3,-1,0,B/browse SatuSuro 14:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. There's quite a few location stubs I'd be keen to see be created for some of the battle articles I've written surrouding the Bougainville campaign. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you see anything in that bunch (they are mostly nice and thick with interesting mixes of photos and maps and text - let me know - I can borrow em and scan appropriate items :) SatuSuro 14:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not in your link above, but I had a look at the uni catalogue and I'd be keen to look at "Bougainville 1942-1945 : Australians in the Pacific War" [researched and written by Anthony Staunton] call number # 940.5426592 BOU 2005 if it was possible. It is 67 pages, though, so it might be a bit too much. But I'd certainly appreciate your time and effort if I could even get a look at the contents page so I could see if the book is worth trying to buy/borrow from up here in Brisbane. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Before next tuesday at the latest (i have some overdue books :) - cheers SatuSuro 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No rush, but sounds great. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein review

Thanks for your review. I think I addressed you comments MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now. I've added my support. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Number 13 class battleship review

Tanks for the review! I've implemented why they were struck into Construction. Could you also review Kii class battleship, please. Buggie111 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I had a look, but I'm really out of my depth with ship articles. I think it is probably a B, but I'd probably prefer if someone with more knowledge rated it. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Slater's Knoll

Just letting you know I will be creating the bio's for John Field and John McKinna soon. Newm30 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I appreciate it. Keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

John Perkins (Royal Navy officer)

You rated this article "Start" class a while back. I've made some edits and added some info etc. Could you please, when you have time, take another look as I think it might qualify for "B-class" now. Many thanks Corneredmouse (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, happy to do so. I've taken a look and agree that it is now B class. I've left a few comments/suggestions on the article talk page that you might like to consider. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

USS Washington (BB-47)

Could you tell me why it fails "coverage and accuracy"? I don't find anything wanting. I'm asing you since you'd be the type of reader who deson't know about ships. Buggie111 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Buggie111. I feel it fails coverage and accuracy for a number of reasons. My main concern is the Construction section. It is mainly just a large block quote about the an Act of Congress, with only one sentence about the actual construction. Information about why the ship's construction was cancelled only seems to be covered in the lead, however it should be mentioned in both the lead (briefly) and in more detail in the article's body. Specifically, information that should be included in the Construction section should include how far along she was towards completion (75.9% is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else), when she was launched, was it commissioned, why was it called Washington (mentioned in lead, but not elsewhere), etc? Also, some background information about why the ship was being built (other than just the block quote), e.g. the First World War had ended, so why did the US decide they needed more ships? Also background infomation about the naval limitation treaty would help provide understanding to the reader. Finally, in the Construction section the date for the Act of Congress doesn't seem correct: "3 August 1886". Is this correct, the quote mentions "nineteen nineteen"? If it is correct, the 33 year gap should be explained. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll get to it as soon as I DYK Brazilian battleship Riachuelo. Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Hey Rupert, could you have a squiz at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Douglas MacArthur/archive1? I'm trying to get the five-star general promoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell

That book - damn - will try to get a look this week - too many threads too many fields of thought :( - sorry SatuSuro 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No dramas. Whenever is fine, don't put yourself out to get it. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, you earned it. Keep up the good work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Forfarforce and Layforce II

Great will revert I did a quick search and could find no mention. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Canberra and Australia FAR

Dear Canberran (per your stay at RMC) and decorated article writer, please lend a hand YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to coax you into helping with the content :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I'm sort of struggling to contribute much to the article space at the moment. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

XP-48

Thanks for cleaning things up. I shouldn't re-write an article at 5 in the morning. :P - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, have a good one. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Red Links

Thanks that's my first one of those. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Barn-owl star

		Wise Old Owl Award
		I'm learning a lot about a lot of different things from your A-class reviews of ships. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I've never seen one of those before! — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Crimp

Hey mate. When I was home on leave I placed Operation Crimp up for GA and as part of the review the question of some additional US sources has been raised. Unfortunately the majority of the sources I have used are Australian, although was able to get my hands on the American official history (and the PAVN). When I was rewriting it I looked fairly widely for American sources and have added as much US info as I could find (although most of it is gleaned from Australian works). Just wondering if you might be able to have a bit of a dig around and see what else you can find? I would do it myself but I'm kind of buggered now. BTW I will be offline for a bit but I will come back to this as soon as I can. The link for the GA review is here. I hope this isn't asking too much given your real life commitments. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate. I will have a look but I don't think I'll be much use. I'll be limited to net sources and from the search I just did most of them are not really reliable. Anyway, take care with your own RL commitments. BTW, if I ever come across Colonel R again I'm going to give them a piece of my mind and it won't be pretty. I want my old job back. Its 2 am and I'm still working on rubbish for Monday. Of course, if I got off wiki and did some work, maybe I wouldn't still be awake, but anyway... — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Found a couple of journal articles on ProQuest, not sure if they are any use to you, though. I've emailed them to you, but I'm struggling to get any time online at the moment so I don't think I'll be able to help. Sorry. Anyway, hope to hear from you again in a week or so. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that, its a start at least. Yellowmonkey has put me onto some books, will have to see if they are available through Googlebooks though. Take it easy. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between West India Regiment and British West Indies Regiment

Hi - sorry to bother you but I recall that you have had previous involvement with the West India Regiment article and have knowledge of the subject. There has recently been a small scale edit war on the WIR site concerning the slightly obscure subject of whether the Regiment saw active service against the Turks in Palestine during the final months of World War I. I believe that the cited references given make it clear that it was two battalions of the wartime raised British West Indies Regiment that fought against against the Turks, while the regulars of the WIR, after respectable service in German Africa, simply guarded lines of communication. The dispute could probably be resolved quickly and amicably but some ugly charges of racism by "white historians and ignorants who cannot deal with real history" are being made by an anonomous editor who does not appear to realise that both units were recruited from exactly the same black Caribbean population. If you have the time, as an informed third party could you look at the article and perhaps comment in your diplomatic way. I admit the sources that I used could be wrong but I dislike seeing a good article that a number of people have contributed to being distorted in this way. Cheers. buistR 08:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, buistR, I've added my opinion to the talk page. To be honest, though, I've not got any real specific content knowledge, but I believe that you are right. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks AustralianRupert. I think that your comments struck just the right note. Cheers.buistR 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Louis H. Carpenter article update

I finally got some information I was waiting for and I added it to Louis H. Carpenter. This confirmed and updated dates for ranks, assignments, and positions. I also finally confirmed his service with the 5th United States Colored Cavalry Regiment. I would appreciate if you took a look at it. With another review, do you think this will finally get to A/FA status?

Please let me know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a quick review to the article's talk page. Unfortunately, I've not got much online time at the moment so can't really do much more than that. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1 RAR

The man with everything at his fingertips! Ta, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Could you have a look at John Caligari? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, not a bad article at all. I've upgraded assessment to start class. It needs an image or infobox to satisfy B class criterion # 5 and just a bit more detail for B2 (e.g in Early life state parents names, siblings etc.) IMO. The bare url chains should probably be hidden also, either with {{cite web}} template or some other way. Otherwise, I think it would be close to a B class article. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I find your comments very interesting. I felt it was still "under construction", and was working my way though that list of URLs! Maybe it's time to tidy things up a bit ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PNS Ghazi

Having problems with Indian editors at the PNS Ghazi article. I've reported them at the NPOV noticeboard and the OR noticeboard but it seems that nobody wants to get involved. So I end up just going in circles with the same Indian editors, who claim that Indian news sources are neutral/reliable and the article should be built up solely on them. I need some advice. Are editors afraid of getting involved in Indo-Pak-related disputes? Do I need to go to the "Arbitration cabal"? Thanks.--Hj108 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, articles about Indian and Pakistani topics have a tendency to attract editors with a non neutral point of view and to result in edit wars. In my own experience attempts at moderating these edit wars often end in the neutral editor being accused of bias themselves. As a result, I think, some editors have decided just to stay away from the topics altogether as Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun experience. Of course, none of this helps you with your issue. My advice would be to leave a message on the main Military history talk page asking for input from interested/knowledgable editors. It can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Also, the South Asian military history task force: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/South Asian military history task force. Someone within the project may have the knowledge required to try to sort out this issue. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I'll try the Mil History board when I get some time. Thanks again.--Hj108 (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

List of commanding officers of the USS Oklahoma (BB 37)

I've fixed all of your concerns. My book makes a special note of Kenworthy, so I decided to throw that in. Could you please re-review, and could you please be a bit snappy, as this is a MilHist contest submission. Buggie111 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks very good, however, I note that there is another user on the talk page with concerns about the inclusion of Kenworthy. Unless Kenworthy is listed as an official commanding officer, I don't feel he should be on the list. (Is there an official list of COs anywhere? Aust Army units usually maintain an official list, so I would think that maybe US Navy ships might do so also.) I have no naval experience, but from my time in the Army, I know that many officers act in roles that they don't officially hold, and they will not usually be included on lists of officers appointed to that position. My suggestion is to post a query on the main mil hist talk page and ask for people with maritime knowledge to determine the answer to this one. However, once that is sorted out, I'm sure it can be assessed as a B class. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet the captain went off to some ball that lasted longer than 34 minutes. Removed. Now does it look good? Buggie111 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the assessment to B class. I've made a few tweaks, that you might want to check to make sure I didn't change anything incorrectly. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Arges

I've split it into two sections + a small lead. no more info can be found. Reasses? Buggie111 (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian has done this for you now. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

27th Battalion (Australia)

Hi, how are you? I just got a copyvio alert for 27th Battalion (Australia) from Theleftorium. Can you provide feedback please. Regards Newm30 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Newm30. Quite busy at the moment, but I shouldn't complain. My advice is to go back through the sources and see where the article paraphrases them, then try to rewrite those sections. Unfortunately, sometimes when an article is based on one or two sources they can sometimes accidentally become too close to the original source. Are there some other sources you could consult? For the WWII section, the Official Histories themselves could be used, they can be found here: [3]. Sorry I can't be much more help at the moment. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a go at a rewrite. Take a look at see what you think. It is here: User:AustralianRupert/Sandbox. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great and hope not too many more come. I know its a drive by Wiki, but as you indicated, when an article is based on one or two sources they can sometimes accidentally become too close to the original source. And sometimes as an individual you may only have those sources and hope that others who have more sources add to the articles. I owe you one. Cam. (Newm30 (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi Rupert. I came across this article and its looking pretty good so far. Any idea about the post war history of the battalion though (i.e. the 10th/27th Battalion, Royal South Australia Regiment etc)? Ian Kurings book Redcoats to Cams may have something on this but I'm not sure, might be worth a look at least. I have a copy and if you ask the lady of the house nicely I'm sure she would happily extend borrowing rights to you. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted some material on the battalion's post-war history on the article talk page Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, guys, I'll see what I can do to piece something together. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget McCArthy's Once and Future Army which I also have. Anotherclown (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also The Bulletin, Volume 23, Issue 89 (1972), Military Historical Society (United Kingdom), has an article on the 27th Battalion, RSAR. Its not fully available on google books and the snippet view is tantalizingly close to giving us the answers (says something about 1 July) but not a year. I can't find a copy anywhere, maybe you could have more luck. From my research to date I think 1RSAR was split into the 10th and 27th battalions on 1 July 1965, when the 9th Task Force was re-formed but nothing yet quite proves it precisely. Anotherclown (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

When I view that Bulletin article it says "July 1st, 1965, the regiment was renumbered the 10th Battalion, Royal South Australian Regiment" (but it cuts off there). That could imply that 1 RSAR became 10 RSAR and 27th was split from that later, but it could also be going to say that 1 RSAR became 10 RSAR and 27 RSAR. I suspect that it is the latter, but can't be sure. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the closest library copy is 590 miles (950 km) away at the ADFA library. Pity I'm not down that way anymore. Could have just ducked out for a walk and picked it up last year. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the secretary of the Military Historical Society... maybe they might have an electronic copy that would be willing to share? If I have no joy maybe you could arrange an inter-library loan through uni? Anyway its a long shot but we'll see. Pretty certain my thesis above is correct though (indeed the page on RSAR actually says this also but doesn't have a reference). Anotherclown (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I live in Canberra and regularly visit the ADFA Library (as a member of the public; I'm not in the military) so can look into this if you like sometime in the next couple of weeks. Just to clarify though, what books (and/or pages?) are you interested in. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, if its not too much trouble that would be great. I haven't had a response to my email to the Military Historical Society yet, nor have I had any luck with the original contributor of the unsourced information in the RSAR article (he never responds to anything but I thought I would try anyway). The article we are after is "27th Battalion, the Royal South Australia Regiment" in The Bulletin, Volume 23, Issue 89 published by the Military Historical Society (United Kingdom) in 1972. Pages 18–19 (i think). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to find a copy today or (more likely) tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've found and photocopied the article and will scan it in tomorrow - it looks to be very useful. If you ping me an email I'll send the scan to you. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick, I've sent you an email with my email address. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Score! Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of Operation Killer by 68.194.127.120

Hi, just noticed some vandalism by 68.194.127.120 at Operation Killer. Can you please revert changes by this user. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism and blocked the account for 31 hours as they're a repeat offender. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:3 9Colour.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:3 9Colour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Myrmidion

Yes good catch moved article thanks. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No. 6 Commando

Do you think something should be added about No. 101 (Folbot) Troop, they did go on to form part of the SBS ? There is some mention of them here [4] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They did at least one operation Template talk:British Commando raids of the Second World War#Operation Astrakan --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim, it is probably worth a mention, I'm just not sure how to fit it in at the moment without it seeming like a throw away reference at the moment. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Something else that could be worth trying to fit in is Steamroller Farm in Nth Africa, I think the battle honour was unique to 6 Cmdo here is a link to a forum [5] which may provide some clues. The articles looking good nice to see some other cmdo getting the credit for what they did. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. I've expanded the article a little. The Steamroller Farm action is listed on the website you provide as 26/27 Feb 1943, which Saunders seems to refer to on p. 125. He doesn't call it Steamroller Farm, though, but I've mentioned it briefly. The description seems a little bit at odds with that on the forum. I think it best to probably follow that which is in Saunders' account given that it would probably be considered more reliable. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No probs dude :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Canberra FAR

Hi there. I've finished the repairs on the Canberra FAR. Can you use your local knowledge to see if anything is missing please? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, well done. I made a couple of minor tweaks which you may wish to review. I think it is good enough to remain listed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Views

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_94#Use_of_flag_icons_and_command_structure_parameter_in_infoboxes, Hammersfan, 18/06/10, 12.47 BST

Image No. 6 Commando

Here is a image from the IWM [6] the caption is: Captain Gerald C S Montanaro of 101 Troop, Special Service Brigade, leads one of his men during combined operations training in the presence of the King at Inverary in Scotland, 9 October 1941. The officer is carrying a Luger pistol with drum magazine.

Montanaro was OC 101 Troop, 6 Commando does not help with North Africa but you may want to use it.

There is also this one [7]

the caption is Commandos of 1st Special Service Brigade in Osnabruck, 4 April 1945. a bit of artistic licence could be used as you know 6 Commando was part of the brigade.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those, Jim. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the 101 Troop image to the article now, in the Formation/Early ops section. I think it works well. Thanks for that. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

HELP NAMING BATTLE OF URUMQI

There were two battles which took place at Urumqi in 1933. As you know, i already created an article about the second one, at Battle of Urumqi. This one started in December 1933 and extended into January 1934. However, there was the earlier battle, which only took place in i believe the spring of 1933. I didn't want to call the second battle, the Battle of Urumqi (1934) because it started in the winter of 1933. I want to create an article about the first battle, should i use the alternate spelling of Urumqi, which is Urumchi? (then it would be Battle of Urumchi, or should i change the second battle to Battle of Urumqi (1934) and call the first one Battle of Urumqi (1933)? Whats the naming convention for this? Дунгане (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, good question. The way I'd do this is create a disambiguation page called "Battle of Urumqi" which links to the two articles. I would then name the two articles: "First Battle of Urumqi (1933)" and then "Second Battle of Urumqi (1933–34)". For an example of a similar issue, take a look at Battle of El Alamein, which is a dab page for First Battle of El Alamein and Second Battle of El Alamein, which both occured in 1942. That's my suggestion anyway. To do this, the steps you would need to follow are: (1) move the article you currently have at "Battle of Urumqi" to the new name of "Second Battle of Urumqi (1933–34)"; (2) recreate "Battle of Urumqi" as a dab page; (3) finally, create "First Battle of Urumqi (1933)". I hope this helps. Let me know if you need help with this and I'll be happy to move the page for you, and set up the dab page for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucius B. Northrop

Thanks for your suggestions regarding the article about Col. Lucius B. Northrop, the Confederate States of America Commissary-General. I have added a startup infobox, but have not yet finalized it (for example, I don't know how to image the colonel's Confederate insignia of rank). Bigturtle (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bigturtle. I've left some comments on the article's talk page. I think I've sorted the image issue. The article looks quite good to me now. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on No. 3 Commando, Battle of Slater's Knoll and No. 6 Commando, all promoted to A-Class between August 2009 and June 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. Congratulations and thank you for your contributions to the project! EyeSerenetalk 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Bizani

Thank you very much for your time. The following hours/days I'll make the appropriate adjustments and update the GA review page.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time. By the way, incredible work within the scope of wp:milhist! Cheers!Alexikoua (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

moderation

Do u have some time to read a discussion and give your opinion ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, its probably not something I feel comfortable with getting involved with at the moment. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

IWM Museum template

Ok I have given up how did you add the IWM template to image of the two commandos training on the No. 6 Commando article I have tried numerous combinations with no success. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Are you trying to add it to Wikipedia image, or a Commons image. I think it only works on Commons, but I might be wrong. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes your probably right - thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Project GreenHands

Hi, I've responded yo your comments on the DYK nom page. Can you please review it again. Here's the link. Thnx Regstuff (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. It looks good to me now. Good work. I had a bit of a look at the Guiness World Records page but there was a lot to scroll through. You might have more luck. You can find it here: [8]. Have a good one. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changing the settings of the city bombing template to allow it to be collapsed - much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for adding the url to the Whitelaw article. I can't believe I left that out. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5