User talk:AustralianRupert

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

Contents

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)

July to September 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 July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook a very impressive 17 reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high-quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Map coordinates[edit]

Greetings Oz, could you point me towards a way of finding a wider map coordinate than a place (like St. Quentin) such as a district or region to represent a bigger area, such as the one that the German spring offensive od 1918 was fought in please? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, I believe that increasing or decreasing the number of decimal places controls the level of precision. Beyond that I'm not much of a guru in this area, sorry. Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates might be able to help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try there.Keith-264 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox flags[edit]

At Bombardment of Cherbourg, although the Infobox identifies the opposing sides as U.S. and Britain versus Nazi Germany showing the Nazi flag Nazi Germany, the flag identifying General Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben, who was not a Nazi, is now changed from a German Cross Balkenkreuz.svg to a Nazi flag, with the explanation, from Brigade Piron, "Flags are designed to make reading the infobox easier: using un-introduced symbols doesn't add anything..” — I think that I copied this convention from another article. Which convention should prevail for professional German officers who were not political Nazis? Thanks for any thoughts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, not sure, sorry. The issue seems complex and a few thoughts/questions spring to mind. Firstly, does the flag with the swastika represent the party or the country? If the latter, then it should possibly be used. If the former, then maybe not. Secondly, how do we know if one officer was a member of the Nazi party or not? For some, I imagine there would be a reliable source stating one way or the other, but for many I imagine that there would be no sources indicating either way. In this regard, do we not run the risk of engaging in original research (whether we add the flag or not if we do not have a source either way?) Perhaps then, it would be best not to add any flag at all...? Again, its complex and I'm not sure. I sometimes think the flagicons are more trouble than they are worth. Sorry. I'd be interested to see what consensus determines. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The General's bio at WP shows his allegiance to Nazi Germany. It's been too long ago for me to recall where I read he never joined the Nazi party. He was assigned to the Eastern Front, where he had a couple of divisions he commanded disbanded after severe losses, he then was given a division on garrison duty in Normandy. In any case, I am not trying to plow new ground, I would rather follow the lead in the biography. I did open a discussion at Bombardment of Cherbourg Talk, sort of running the idea up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Following up what Rupert said towards the end of his previous post, I think this throws into sharp relief why it's better to simply avoid flags in infoboxes. I ceased using them in biographical and unit articles over a year ago and no-one seems to be missing them, despite them all going through several sets of eyes at reviews... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. 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) 09:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Units of the Australian Army Unofficial Wikiproject[edit]

Hey mate. Was just thinking - any chance you might expand your project to include special forces, aviation and logistics units? Might make a more complete list. Of course it will still probably only be you, and very occasionally me, working on it... Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I was just thinking that...of course, it's a lot harder to find refs for some of those units, especially the loggie units and it might be very difficult to write B-class articles on some of them. I should probably also add corps (i.e. RAInf, RAE, etc.) as well, and corps (formations - I Anzac, II Anzac, I Australian, etc.), and the university regiments and the training establishments. Have you got any units you'd like to add? I suppose the CSSBs and the FSBs...any others? If you list them here, I can start adding them to the list. Just when I thought I was slowly getting there... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As a start I'd suggest:
Special forces:
Special Air Service Regiment
1st Commando Regiment (Australia)
2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)
Aviation units:
1st Aviation Regiment (Australia)
5th Aviation Regiment (Australia)
6th Aviation Regiment (Australia)
Historically many sqns have been independent before they were brigaded so we seem to have few articles on these:
171st Aviation Squadron (Australia) (now part of 6 Avn Regt)
173rd Aviation Squadron (Australia) (now part of 6 Avn Regt)
Also have:
161st Independent Reconnaissance Flight (Australia) (served in Vietnam - later became 161 Squadron and is part of 1 Avn Regt)
Logistics units:
2nd Force Support Battalion (Australia)
9th Force Support Battalion (Australia)
10th Force Support Battalion (Australia)
1st Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
3rd Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
4th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
5th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
8th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
9th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
11th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
13th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
Probably health units too, MPs, Int.. Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That said - I wonder if some of the CS and CSS units would actually meet the GNG? Perhaps not on second thoughts. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Also I wonder about including some of the notable ad hoc Battle Groups / Task Forces? Perhaps at least:
1st Australian Task Force
Al Muthanna Task Group
Overwatch Battle Group (West)
Mentoring Task Force One (although this was obviously only one rotation of MTF - I wonder if there should be an article that covers all rotations of RTF/MRTF/MTF as well one day like we have for the Iraq BGs). Anotherclown (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anotherclown: G'day, I've added a few of these now: the special forces, aviation units, and task forces. I didn't add MTF 1, but made a new link for Mentoring Task Force (Australia), as I think it would be good to create an overarching article as you say. Not sure about the loggie units: I suspect that the majority are not notable in a Wikipedia sense, particularly the Ressie ones, due to lack of sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Also I wonder about 1st and 2nd AIF? Anotherclown (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, congratulations on placing first in the September 2014 Milhist article writing contest, with an awesome 114 points from 22 articles. Well done! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Australian Light Horse 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:
  • Horse Brigades, the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, and the British [[22nd Mounted Brigade]]). Meanwhile, the Imperial Mounted Division was formed from the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Australian armoured units of World War II 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:
  • were considered to have superior performance in jungle terrain;{{sfn|Dennis et al |1995|p=51}}} as a result, all of the armoured units to be deployed to the South West Pacific after the initial

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian armoured units of World War II[edit]

Hi, Regarding this, from memory my sources for the material of the role of the divisional carrier companies were war diaries on the AWM's website... I added this way back in 2006 when referencing wasn't common ;) I'll see if I can find some actual published references! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Cheers, Nick, Finlayson's Green Fields Beyond has a lot of good information and confirms most of this from what I can tell - I've only had a quick look, though. I'm away on course at the moment, so only have a few of my sources with me until I get home in a month or so. So any help you can give would be most appreciated! I'm taking a break from the article now for a couple of hours at least, so if you are keen there shouldn't be any edit conflicts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/6th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadre. 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) 08:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive[edit]

Silverwiki 2.png September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for placing second in the WikiProject's September–October 2014 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Silver Wiki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png Working Man's Barnstar
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's September–October 2014 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/6th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/6th 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) 20:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/6th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 2/6th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:2/6th 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) 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/6th Battalion (Australia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matara and Derna. 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) 09:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Userpage question[edit]

Can I borrow your userpage design? The table-system I mean. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes, that's fine by me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Buna–Gona[edit]

Have been working on the Battle of Buna–Gona and pretty much have a final draft. Have a question about using a graphic which is copyrigth free non-commercial use. It is the painting Action at Buna. http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/ART27547/. I believe it may fit the criteria for use but my perception is probably a bit biased because I would like to be able to use it. Also, I don't have experience in making the assessment. Following is the proposed caption. I would argue that it is critical in that it conveys the intensity of the fighting in a way that text or the available pictures cannot. Your feedback on this please. Also, is there a way of getting some feedback/proofing/editor comments informally before I throw it to the lions and while it is still easy to amend? What should I do next?

"Action at Buna, a commissioned work by former war artist, Geoffery Mainwaring.ref"Biography: Lieutenant Geoffrey Richard Mainwaring". Australian War Memorial.  Unknown parameter |http://www.awm.gov.au/people/P65107/?query= ignored (help); ref This oil on canvas is a montage of scenes from photographs, some of which are included herein. Though perhaps busier than reality, it conveys the intensity of the fighting in the Duropa plantation at Buna. Note the Japanese sniper falling from the tree. AWM ART27547 This image is licensed under CC BY-NC http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/au/

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I believe that you can ask such questions here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Off the top of my head, I suspect that the CC-BY-NC will not be acceptable, unfortunately. But there is no harm in asking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted ref tags so they wouldn't always appear at the bottom of your page Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Buna–Gona[edit]

I have the final draft ready for review.

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, thanks for letting me know. Can you please provide a link to where the draft is? Also, I suggest adding a post at Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona, letting the regular editors there know you have a proposed draft so that they can comment etc. as this will help you to establish whether there is consensus to change to your version or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Find it at Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona Cinderella157 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

PS Should I provide the link on the talk page at this time? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, yes I think you should add a link on the talk page and start a discussion to gauge whether there is agreement to use your version. I will take a look and offer some suggestions in a while (I'm a bit busy today, but might get some time this evening while watching the cricket). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am getting a little frustrated (though certainly not with you). Part of this comes from saying (I paraphrase) that the original article is significantly superior partly because certain criteria have been met when they have not been met to the extent claimed and what has been done has been done in an arbitrary way. Placing a reference at the end of a paragraph is only valid to meet the criteria if it references the key points in the paragraph. There have been claims that the original has done something (usually formatting wise) when it hasn't or that things should be done so, when they are not done so in the original. I am also finding the wiki material on doing stuff not all that helpful or user friendly. I just spent a heap of time sorting out the bit about the 2/126th when it was relieved. The 6 officers and 126 looked like a typo. It was and it was carried over from the original page. I had tried to use as much of the original page as I could - partly to make it easier and consciously to preserve as much of the earlier contributions as I could. There are also other errors of fact or misquotes. The existing article is superior because it is 'fully' referenced even though it is factually inaccurate and many references are only passingly relevant to the text being cited? I acknowledge that there is scope for improving my draft and this is not the source of my frustration, but I would like to have seen something more positive for my efforts. I have just needed to express my frustration. Some of this arises from the enormity of the task, my inexperience and possibly from the weather. I have just needed to vent a bit and work through this frustration. Hope you can understand. Thank you for listening. Please edit out if you wish. Thank you Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, no worries, we all need to vent sometimes and I can well understand your frustration. (I've had my share of them, but mostly not online. You can read a little about them here if you wish: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2013/Op-ed). Anyway, you make some very good points above about infelicities in the original draft. Unfortunately, though, it probably takes someone working through it to the depth that you are to see these issues. I personally think that what you are producing in your draft is very good. It still needs work, of course, but when you are eventually done I'd be surprised if it isn't much much better than the original, to the extent that you could probably nominate it for some of the site's higher assessment processes, for example WP:GAN, or WP:MHACR. (That is, of course, after it has been moved over the original draft - incidentally that process will need to be discussed in more detail when you get closer to completion, as it will be a bit involved and will require more discussion/consensus, and someone with administrator tools). Regarding difficult to read Wiki policy: yes, this is a common theme among new editors. It will get easier for you as you gain experience, but I'm more than happy to try to explain if you have any questions. Anyway, I'm sorry, I must go offline for a bit. Stay positive, and I'm sure that you will get there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and encouragement when other supports were in this context were not available. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 453 Squadron RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page V-1. 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) 09:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent editing of 255 Squadron page[edit]

Rupert... Your recent editing of No._255_Squadron_RAF has inserted numerous "Citation needed" tags. Most of this information is known and was displayed until the start of an editing frenzy on 11 November 2014, the result of which is IMO a disaster. I regard it as pointless even to begin to undo the damage that has arisen until the situation stabilises. I'd be chasing my own tail. 255 Historian (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@255 Historian: G'day, I'm sorry to hear that you characterise your current experience of Wikipedia editing as a "disaster". I'd like to encourage you to stay positive. I got involved with the article due to a post on the main Milhist talk page asking for some copy editing help. I hadn't seen the dramas on the talk page until I'd mostly gone through the article. As part of copyediting, I will usually add a tag where I feel a citation is needed to bring the article up to B-class on the Milhist assessment scale. When I saw the concerns raised on the talkpage, I stopped working on it. I have no plans to continue working on it either. That said, I really think that the other editors working on the article have its best interests at heart (as you do too no doubt) and they are only working to try to make it comply with Wikipedia's standards and policies, including the Manual of Style and referencing requirements. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon one's perspective) writing for Wikipedia is not like writing for other websites, or journals etc. There are unique policies that may not make much sense outside of the encyclopedia. These policies limit the types of information that can be included, and limit what sorts of references can be used. Working within these guidelines can be difficult at the start, but eventually it will become easier. My advice is to try to work with editors like Graham, Nigel and Milborne et al, as they are very experienced on Wikipedia; if you are unsure of why something was changed, ask and I'm sure that they will explain. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response. What has happened during the past week has caused great offence, not just to me but to others involved with the squadron and it's history. If I'd known this sort of thing was going to happen I would never have involved with Wikipedia at all.
My e-mail Inbox is red hot. Here's one quote more repeatable than some others, written by a retired Squadron Leader and data contributor: "I have never come across anything like this before. Mind blowing. What do they hope to achieve? Is there any way of barring folk like this from undoing the good work of others?"
The only contribution I would wish to keep from the "frenzy" is the original one from Milborne. His précis was remarkable, considering the timespan in which he did it, and I would very much have liked the opportunity to build on that without further interference. But what really got up my nose was the way in which people dived in without prior consultation. I would have expected common courtesy alone to have produced something on the Talk page before making deletions of such magnitude. You may consider Graham and Nigel helpful, I don't. Right now, I'd like to find them another planet.
There is one amendment, I think yours, which I would urge you to alter without delay - the "Better source needed" tag against the reference to Lammer's memoirs. The destructive editing of "HoHum", Nigel Ish and Graeme Leggett has masked the rationale of that reference. Freddie Lammer was the squadron's Senior Navigator and a whizz at operating the tutor's controls of the training aid - a sort of Flight Simulator for radar operators. But that detail got hacked out without regard to overall continuity. Hence the reference now appearing odd. In the reference itself, the "Op.Cit." is no longer appropriate because the previous reference to the same source has been culled. But my point is this: There is no better source than Lammer. He was the best of the best in this respect. His DFC (award of which was also hacked out) was well deserved. His son, with whom I am in contact, is minded to publish his late father's memoirs but it hasn't happened yet.
As it is now past 02:30 local time, I'm now closing down for the night. Chris. 255 Historian (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@255 Historian: G'day again, I believe that the "better source needed" tag was added with this edit: [2], which was performed by Milborne, so I'm not in a position to reconsider, sorry. That said, I suspect that the reason it has been tagged is because of the source's "unpublished" status. Wikipedia's policies for referencing (as outlined here in WP:RS) perfer that we use published secondary sources, so I believe that is probably why Milborne tagged it the way they did (it would probably be best for you to ask them, though, to confirm as I'm not comfortable talking for other people). It doesn't necessary mean that the source itself isn't "good" or even "accurate", it just means that it does not necessarily conform with the site's policies. If you are wanting to write a history of the squadron based on primary sources, my suggestion would be to create a website off Wikipedia, or to have it published in a journal or somewhere else. Outside of my writing on Wikipedia, I have had a number of works published in professional history journals and books using primary/unpublished sources; these are considered fine in the wider publishing/academic sphere, but such sources would not be considered valid on Wikipedia. I know it can be painful, and a bit confusing, but at the end of the day if we choose to put information on the website, we are accepting to abide by its policies. If you would like help understanding some of the site's policies, I'm more than happy to try to respond to any questions you may have. If I can't answer your questions, I can probably direct you to someone who can. Equally, you may consider posing questions to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Anyway, good night. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 255, I've not had a direct hand in editing this article but, with respect, if you and your associates are taking "great offence" of the attempts by Wikipedia regulars to try and get it to comply with site guidelines, then you are probably too close to it. I notice from the article talk page that there's been a suggestion that a dedicated squadron association website is the place for material this detailed and I have to agree. Editing on Wikipedia demands objectivity. This is very difficult to achieve if the editing is being done by or on behalf of squadron members or sons of members, etc, etc. I say that as the son of a pilot who served with and/or commanded several of the RAAF units covered in Wikipedia -- but I've been careful not to add information based on personal knowledge to any of those, it's not what Wikipedia is for. Please remember that there are hundreds of air force squadrons that are deserving of coverage, but that coverage needs to follow Wikipedia principles of neutrality, due weight, and reliable (preferably secondary) sourcing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hoping that Rupert won't object to this discourse continuing here...
Hurray! We have a point of agreement. 255 Squadron Association clearly does need its own website. My dilemma is what to leave on Wikipedia, both short-term and long-term.
Short-term, I'm thinking of something as drastic as returning the page to its state as at 01 January 2014, save for a link to the contact information for the Squadron Association and a statement that a separate website is under construction. And then locking it. What's there right now is a disgrace - seriously incomplete (in places misleadingly so) and very badly referenced. Examples: Where is any mention of 255 at Grottaglie, Italy, where it maintained a presence continuously for a whole year? What credible article uses two different styles of referencing in one place? If the present state of the page is an example of good Wikipedia editing by experienced people, I'd hate to see a sample of bad Wikipedia editing. Forget motives; the end result of one week's meddling is a disaster.
Long-term and despite all, I'd still like to see a proper summary of the squadron's history on Wikipedia. But not something that's going to be hacked about by self-appointed "style guardians" who clearly don't think carefully enough before they edit. For example: The currently unexplained reference to "64LYK" is unexplained only because someone deleted the explanation - the section headed Squared Charts (which, I might add, has been praised by the library staff of the National Maritime Museum as a breakthrough). But it was deleted, no consultation and no regard to continuity! Had I been ASKED before such a major deletion took place, I could at the very least have pointed out the continuity implications. Maybe even suggested the creation of a new page dedicated to Squared Charts.
More has been lost here than just the material I had already posted. Earlier this week I was on the point of agreeing with two very copyright-aware organisations the release on Creative Commons licencing of some rare photographs. The organisations in question were "Science and Society" (Science Museum, London) and "P&O Heritage", the archive of the Peninsular and Orient shipping line. No point in furthering that now, even if they were to remain willing. The context into which the images were to be placed has been culled.
Time, I suggest, for the "Milhist Mob" to be put under external scrutiny of some sort. The present state of the 255 Squadron page suggests to me that the present arrangements are unfit for purpose. 255 Historian (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@255 Historian: G'day, I'm happy to continue the discourse, but please refrain from using disparaging language about other editors. I am also happy to try to help you achieve what you want, but please be aware that some of it may not be possible. For instance, you state above that you are considering locking the article. There are very few reasons why an article would be locked, and it requires administrator access to do it, so it is not necessarily an easy thing to achieve as it kind of goes against the spirit of the site (i.e. the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). The relevant policy guidance can be found here: Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you are wanting to revert the article, the first thing I encourage you to do is to try to establish consensus. Put a proposal on the article's talk page and try to engage the other editors who are working on it. Explain your reasons and see if they support your proposal. If you can establish an agreement, it will be a lot easier to achieve. Equally, Keith's comment below about asking the others to outline what they would like to see is good advice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Can I chip in my two penn'orth? I put more description into articles than most, which is sometimes sharply criticised but when I looked at the article, even I thought it could do with pruning. I wouldn't want the work to go to waste, so finding a home for the article you want to write and then doing a separate smaller version in Wiki according to the criteria makes sense. It can be a bit depressing to feel that strangers have walked in and spoilt a lot of hard work, so perhaps you could ask them to sketch a structure they would broadly support, instead of ad hoc edits, which leave you thinking that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't? The Milhist mob might seem a bit cliquey but they've managed to put up with me for quite a few years so they aren't all bad. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your latest contributions. Keith - your use of the word cliquey seems to me to be spot on. "Regulars" and "Newcomers" are still viewing things rather differently; the following hit my e-mail Inbox at 20:56 UTC, sent by an Oxford Professor, no less: "I think your text to the Australian chap is completely appropriate and gently written, bearing in mind the angst those people have caused you. Excellent."
I reckon what's now needed is a cooling-off period. I have no more time to devote to this anyway - not for several days. If I manage to get to TNA next week I'll try to resolve the Flights/Squadron numbers issue from 1918 and treat the outcome as a possible starting point for a rebuild.
You may or may not know this, but as well as the repository of original documents TNA also has, on the same site, a reference library that is stuffed full of books about military history. Also it is but a short tube train ride from TNA to the British Library, where one can order up any book or magazine published in the UK and a selected few of overseas origin too. 255 Historian (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not quite what I meant; as a beginner I thought that the "crowd" was a bit cliquey but that despite that, they were fair-minded, which I suppose isn't what cliques are like. Clearly your intentions are slightly at variance with what Wiki is for so that's a contradiction that has to be resolved outside of Wiki. I have to live with the consensus of printed historical writing about my field often being demonstrable crap, yet having to be deferred to, because quality research and recent PhDs aren't as notable. If you fancy blowing off some steam User talk:Keith-264 is available for sounding off and as a practical suggestion, set up a sandbox. If you type [[User:255 Historian/sandbox]] (omitting the nowiki format) into your talk page you will get a red link. Click on and you have a page to write what you please, like this User:Keith-264/sandbox. You can go back to the official 255 Sqn page and copy and paste the version you intended into the sandbox, to work on undisturbed. When it's done you could ask people to look it over and suggest a version which conforms to wiki criteria, so that you can see the difference. You can put the definitive version on any website you please and someone else can add it as an External link to the wiki page. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello AustralianRupert. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No. 20 Squadron RAAF[edit]

I initially rated B-1 no because I missed that the Short Empire was referenced in the narrative. Therefore, I thought it needed a reference in the infobox. (I don't like infobox references, but for USAF units use them frequently in connection with unit emblems -- I imagine the RAAF follows RAF practice in calling them badges -- because they are rarely mentioned in the narrative). FWIW, on a personal style matter, I usually link tactics or missions (like anti-submarine warfare on the theory that folks ignorant of the military read these articles. Because of where it links, I doubt I would have done this for mine-laying, though. Hope you approve of the changes I made on the talk page. I never knew that Labor was spelled correctly in Oz. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Lineagegeek, thanks for taking a look. Just why the ALP spells its name as "Labor" has always confused me. I guess one day I will have to try to find out... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 100 Squadron RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tadji. 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) 00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Demi-brigade v demi-brigade[edit]

Hi chief, thanks for your recent edits on the Siege.... I was instructed (by a different reviewer) to capitalize demi-brigade if it was in the name of the unit (for example: 42nd Demi-brigade), but not to capitalize if it was referring to a general number of them...(for example, Moreau sent twelve demi-brigades to Italy). What's the word, hummingbird? (that's a line for a song...)  :) auntieruth (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Ruth, yes I agree with that advice (common noun v. proper noun etc). Are you referring to this edit: [3]? I think it consistent with that advice. If you don't agree, please feel free to adjust my edits. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)