User talk:AustralianRupert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I'll reply to your message here.

Red links[edit]

I assumed that by putting {{Main|Battle of Malmaison}} on the Second Battle of the Aisne page I'd get a red link for the new page I'm doing (I thought I'd written it earlier on the year, hence the revert confusion) but it redirected to the Aisne page. Will I have to temporarily delete that section so it will red link when I've got the Malmaison page fit to upload? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, I think when you've got the Malmaison page ready to upload, all you would need to do is save it over the redirect code on that page. If you want it to show as a red-link until then, I think you would need an admin to delete it; but, I'm not sure that would be necessary. It's probably best just to wait to add the main link. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/11th Field Regiment (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done this now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Adequate Evidence?[edit]

Hi Australian Rupert,

I recently added an article regarding my grandfathers Military Medal that he was awarded at the 'Battle of Messines' 1917, which you declined because of insufficent evidence.

Would you know which organisation will have these records such as the Military Medal recipients and what exactly do I need to prove that it's Alfreds medal?

Thanks Rob M Hughes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alfred_John_Hughes,_MM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob M Hughes (talkcontribs) 10:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rob M Hughes: G'day, Robert. The reason I declined creating the article was not because of lack of evidence about the medal itself, it was because the article did not make it clear that Alfred Hughes met Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which govern whether an article should be written about a subject. While any Military Medal recipient is a worthy individual – in my opinion, at least – the site has policies about what topics should be covered in an article, and what should not, and generally people who have received medals of the same level as the Military Medal have not been found to be notable unless they have other characteristics that make them notable. For instance, a professional cricketer who also received the MM would most likely be notable (as an example only, as they are notable for being a professional cricketer as well as receiving the MM) if these facts could be reliably referenced; additionally someone who has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources (e.g. books, journal articles, some websites, some newspapers etc.) will be considered to be notable. Relevant policy links for you to take a look at if you feel keen are: WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:MILPEOPLE (please note that the latter is not policy, it is just an essay, but it is focused on military topics and gives reasonable guidance about article topics/notability). Additionally, if you trawl through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive, you will get a good idea of what articles have been found by the community to be not notable in a Wikipedia-sense, and have subsequently been deleted. If I can help in any other way, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 39th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 39th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 39th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 39th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:39th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 39th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC[edit]

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet another book on the Gallipoli Campaign[edit]

Reading the latest copy of The Journal of Military History (July 2014), I ran across a book review by Russell Parkin of the Australian Defence College at Canberra that I thought would be of interest to you. Climax at Gallipoli: The Failure of the August Offensive by Rhys Crawley, University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, Oklahoma, 2014, ISBN 978-0-8061-4426-9, 364 pages. (maps, figures, tables, list of abbreviations, appendixes, notes, bibliography, index); US$34.95. Parkin generally gives the book good marks in his review.

I know you posted extensively on the Gallipoli campaign within the past few months and anytime I hear the word Gallipoli, Ole Rupert pops into my mind... I don't know if a local Oz library might spring for a copy for you, but if they don't and you are intensely interested, I could purchase same for you and post it at my expense...just because you have been such a help and inspiration to my Wikipedia career. Let me know what you think... Cuprum17 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, mate, I will see if I can get a copy through the work library, which is usually very good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook 21 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry[edit]

AustralianRupert,

Re: 33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry

Going through the American Civil War regiments and found 33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry is assessed as "B class" while above it is assessed as a "Good Article". Which is the correct assessment? Adamdaley (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, the article is assessed as B class. The Good Article icon that you see above the Milhist banner on the talk page is not an assessment, it is the banner that appears when an article is nominated for a GA review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In reviewing this article for "B" class, did you feel it was too long or overly detailed? Another reader recently raised that point, and while I disagreed with him at the time, I certainly could be wrong. Your impartial assessment on that subject (if you remember this article; I know it's been awhile since you read it) would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ecjmartin: G'day, I'm sorry you had a disappointing GAN experience. I really like the article, to be honest; the reviewer does have a point, it is quite long, but at the same time it also has a lot of information that would be hard to find elsewhere. I would hazard that you have probably created one of the most comprehensive accounts of the unit anywhere. I think that that is a great achievement, but I am probably biased, though, as I like reading and writing about infantry units. If you do want to consider options to condense the article, I have a couple of suggestions. I would look at would be the following areas: (1) quotes (you might be able to reduce the article size by being a bit more sparse with your use of quotes); and (2) narrative flow (you might be able to improve your narrative flow by putting some of the incidental information into footnotes). For instance sentences like these: "An explanatory map detailing the different phases of the Battle of Nashville, including positions held by Cheatham's corps on both days, may be seen here" and "A map of the Battle of Ringgold Gap, showing the position of the 33rd Alabama and other regiments involved, may be seen here. A modern photograph of the pass may be seen here Ringgold Gap | Flickr - Photo Sharing!, and a historical video may be found here The Battle of Ringgold Gap - YouTube". In terms of long term development, perhaps you might be better served taking the article to peer review or even Milhist A-class Review, as you would potentially get a wider group of reviewers who would give you a broader opinion about if it is too long. If you do take it to ACR, though, please be advised that it will be scrutinised to a high standard (close to Featured Article) and that some of the changes you might be asked to make, you might not agree with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the fault was partially my own as far as the GAN was concerned; I was going through a difficult time at that moment (stepmom's death), and wasn't in the best of moods. I deeply appreciate your candor and your suggestions here, and will certainly take them on board. I'm thinking right now that a peer review might be a good idea; like you, I think this article has a great deal of hard-to-find information that could potentially interest not just readers interested in this particular unit, but students of the US Civil War altogether. I would hate to see anything taken out that doesn't need to be removed, but on the other hand I recognize the bias that most if not all writers have toward their own material (I am certainly no exception to this rule, LOL!), and am certainly open to constructive ideas for improvement. I think I'll make a few changes this weekend along the lines of what you suggest, then send it up for a peer review. Thanks so much; again, I deeply appreciate your time and help with this, and the work you just did on the article! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Rupert, I hope you don't mind my sending you this. I'm sending it to you and the others who helped me out on this article. Some folks don't care for barnstars, but I realize how long and involved this article is, and I just wanted to say thanks for your time. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ACW Barnstar.png The American Civil War Barnstar
A special thanks to you for your recent contributions to 33rd Alabama Infantry and its associated peer review. I know it was long and detailed, so I just wanted to say I appreciated your time, interest and feedback. Thanks! Ecjmartin (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I appreciate that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

USS Mahan (DD-364)[edit]

An unfortunate event put me in the hospital for the last five days, so I have not been active in responding to your review. But I expect to resume soon. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all, I've been offline for a bit myself (but just because of work). I hope you are feeling better. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview[edit]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview in the upcoming August issue of The Bugle with editors who work on articles concerning World War I. We're conducting this interview to mark the centenary of the war, and it forms part of a semi-regular series of interviews on thematic topics. If you're able to participate, I'd be grateful if you could post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2014/Interview by next Sunday 17 July. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gday Nick - FYI, Rupert's got internet access issues and I'm not sure if he will be back for a couple of weeks. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for letting me know. AR, if you see this I meant 10 August, not 17 July: I shouldn't be typing anything with a heavy cold! Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day, back now - sort of, anyway. Sorted the net connection, but work and home life aren't leaving much time for Wikipedia anymore. Re the interview: sure, I'll take a look and try to contribute something this weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your responses Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Rawlinson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

16th Infantry (Newcastle Regiment)[edit]

Do you know anything about the 16th Infantry (Newcastle Regiment) that was mobilised on Saturday, 8th August, 1914? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, through a complex lineage they are linked to the 2nd Battalion (Australia), I believe, according to Festberg's Lineage of the Australian Army (1972, p. 59). The 16th Infantry was established in 1912 from the 1/4th AIR, 1 NSW Scottish Rifles and 1 Australian Rifle Regiment. Throughout World War I they would largely have been reduced to a paper organisation only and then in 1918 were reorganised with the 14th Infantry Regiment to form the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment. In 1921, the 2/2nd IR merged witht eh 5/2nd and 2/13th IR to form the 2nd Battalion (City of Newcastle Regiment). This link also has details: [1]. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The lineages get very convuluted. The 16th Infantry (Newcastle Regiment) and 14th Infantry (Hunter River Regiment) were mobilised for the defence of Newcastle. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I notice again that lineages are being discussed at 10th Battalion (Australia). Do we need to disambiguate 10th Battalion (Australia) along with the other AIF Battalions (I know this might get messy with the lineages) and rename to 10th Battalion, Australian Imperial Force, etc? This obvviously would need to be done via concensus and other views sought, but could be a way of dealing with the complex lineages. I also note that ANMEF was also known as "Tropical Force". Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, interesting question. My personal opinion is that this wouldn't be a good idea and I wouldn't recommend disambiguating 10th Battalion or any of the 60 AIF battalions in that way. I say this for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would go against a very long standing consensus which has existed for at least as long as I've been on Wiki (that is as far back as January 2009 at least). Secondly, it would essentially create a large number of stub articles for battalions that have limited history after World War I, and arguably (in some cases) no notability. Finally, to make such a change in a consistent and effective manner would require a lot of time and effort, and I don't really see much benefit in doing so (particularly as I would hazard that some of the articles on the Militia formations, as per my second point, would potentially run afoul of the notability guidelines and could potentially be deleted meaning that we would be back at square one as the only way to include that information would be within the article that discusses the World War I formation which can establish notability). For these reasons, the current approach - while it is not perfect - is the best in my opinion. Happy to discuss further if you wish, of course. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Suoi Bong Trang copy edit[edit]

Thanks for doing that - quite an improvement. Anotherclown (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 10th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 10th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 10th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 10th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:10th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Just pinged you on your Wikipedia email[edit]

As you requested back in 2010, to notify that have sent you an email on your WP address. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 10th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Somalia[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at the draft RfC before I post it? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Buckshot, sorry for the delay in replying but I've been very busy at work this week so I haven't managed to get online the past few days. I don't seem to have received the file in my email, but I think that might be because I have changed emails since we last exchanged one. Unfortunately I got hacked, so I had to turn off the "email this user" function about a year ago. Anyway, I'd be happy to take a look if you can link to a version on Wiki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Australian Army order of battle (1914) & Australian Imperial Force order of battle (1914)[edit]

G'day, I thought I would start a new thread here to discuss whether an Australian Army order of battle (1914) page should be created to show the order of battle on the outbreak of war in August and then create the Australian Imperial Force order of battle (1914) to show the units raised and despatched during 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, interesting question. We currently have Structure of the Australian Army during World War II, so perhaps there is scope for a similar article for World War I: Structure of the Australian Army during World War I? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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

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

Two years ago, you were the 125th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda, you're pretty awesome yourself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

7th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)[edit]

Rupert, I see that you have recently rated the Talk:7th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). I can see that Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met as it is still a work in progress (Crimean and Boer Wars to do, WWI to finish), however, I am a bit puzzled by Referencing and citation: criterion not met. What have I missed? I was fairly convinced that I have cited everything so far, but I must have missed something. Can you let me know what I have missed, please? Hamish59 (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Hamish, overall I think it is very well referenced, but what stood out to me was the table of commanding officers. Some lines appear referenced, but others don't. If you have a general ref that covers all of them, my suggestion would be to put it at the end of the stem sentence that introduces the table, e.g. "The 7th Brigade had the following commanders from January 1906:[Ref]". Or you could just replicate the same ref for each line in the Notes column. That was all really. Great work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Rupert, thank you very much for the feedback. Not a problem, I will cite each of the commanders. Hamish59 (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Cunning pun as well - "a general ref" :) OK not actually generals, but still --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

Thanks for your encouragement and support at Bombardment of Cherbourg. Several sources dismiss the engagement as inconsequential, unlike participants, both Allied and German ground force commanders. I would like to bring the article to A-class not only for my own development (I would also like to return to Battle of Fort Pulaski, another engagement with combined forces aspects, which is perhaps better named a two-month's siege), --- but also to complete the picture of the combined arms which not only disrupted German communications as the direct air support had done in the advance on Cherbourg, but naval bombardment disabled seaward facing guns from reorienting landward (the Germans had learned from the Brits seaward-only facing gun placement at Singapore), and provided direct support to advancing infantry (mostly the destroyers).

Also, I found that other editors prior to the A-class assessment have removed many of the examples of ships in the two groups. The comment at the time was the length of the article would not support so many images. I thought examples of each group battleships, cruisers and destroyers were important as the older in Group 2 were committed to the Battery Hamburg, the newer to reduce lighter batteries so as to have time to give direct support to infantry. But these, like the detail on the destroyers seem to be lost as a part of the summary encyclopedic milieu. I do not know that they can be readmitted, as when I scroll down in my browser, there is an illustration at every frame as the article is now constituted.

I returned to the Bombardment of Cherbourg piece over the last couple of weeks, meeting most of your suggestions to the best of my ability, updates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bombardment of Cherbourg. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The earlier concern to Germanize the U.S. military source “General" Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben to “Generalleutnant” in the Background section will also apply to "Field-Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt” in the Outcomes section. Do you have a translation? My Google online translator says, "Feldmarschall". Keith-264 notes that biographical articles can be used to get titles, although I should think they are the highest attained, rather than necessarily the rank of July 1944. In any case, that gives us "Generalfeldmarschall" for von Rundstedt and Rommel. Although contrary to A-class review, Rommel is named as a 'field marshal' in the introduction to his C-class article biography.
Of some interest, article traffic is reported as an average of 35 a day over the last 60 days, with spikes over 60 on six days, two over 120. I imagine the article might be used for some class assignment purpose, could that be? If so, that would be major "psychic income" for the former Marine, retired high school teacher. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: G'day, sorry I don't know much about German ranks/translation but perhaps Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) or Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) can help? Regarding the length of the article and inclusion of details about groupings, perhaps the best way to tackle this is to create a separate article for the order of battle information. Something like this perhaps: Battle of Milne Bay order of battle or Battle of the Bismarck Sea order of battle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The German form is Generalfeldmarschall which translates into the English "field marshal". Where we get into strife is with the lower ranks, Generaloberst (colonel general), which we don't in English-speaking armies), General and Generalleutnant, which are easy to translate, but don't quite match up with English equivalents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've conformed the article to Generalfeldmarschall. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you say this soldier is notable?[edit]

Paul Emile Diou. Would appreciate your opinion here. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, the article states he was a general, so it seems like he probably would be notabl but it really comes down to the sources. If there is significant coverage, then I'd say yes. If not, then maybe not. It seems a reasonably decent article, though, so it would be a shame to lose it. Is there a concern about the article in particular? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
My main concern is that the sources in this article are primarily service records of Diou. As you may already know, service records are something every soldier has. I do not see any significant coverage this this general in third-party sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/10th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/10th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/10th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 2/10th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:2/10th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The New South Wales and Queensland Companies |newspaper=Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney, New South Wales: 1870&ndash;1907 |date=15 February 1902 |accessdate=19 September 2014}}<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)