User talk:AustralianRupert

I'll reply to your message here.

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist;
• If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here;
• Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~).

James B. McCreary

Thanks for your comments during the recent WP:MILHIST A-class review of James B. McCreary. If you are interested, I've now listed the article at WP:FAC. Your comments and suggestions for further improvement would again be welcome. Thanks again. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no worries at all. I don't tend to review at FAC, though, as my past experiences have been less than enjoyable. Nevertheless, I wish you the best of luck with it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Contest

Hi mate, I was about to score Parsec's entries and do the tallies but can you remind me, do we always remove articles thhat haven't progressed in their scores, i.e. effectively avoiding scoring people zero? I just can't recall whether it was that straighforward... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ian, my memory is not good at the moment (a bit tired from work), but I think that is how I've been doing it. Sorry, I can't be clearer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well what I did was move all non-scoring entries still under some sort of review as at midnight 30 June to next July's contest table (including one of Parsec's that had moved up a level but only on 2 July), and left two with zero scores from Parsec's check/verification run that had failed reviews and had not been renominated, because it didn't seem to make sense pushing them into next month at this stage. Feel free to tweak if you think that was complicating things... Also looks like Ed and I have tied for first in a low-scoring contest so if you have a sec perhaps you can tally (won't take long!) and throw out the Chevrons rather than me. Djmaschek was third and I can award him the Writer's Barnstar... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ian, yes, I will do this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Done - I also awarded the Writer's Barnstar and updated the newsletter. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Tks mate -- ever reliable... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy#Ambassadorship

Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm not really knowledgable on the Ambassador program, but I think your proposal looks fine. It makes sense to start with the best. Additionally, if you educate the professor, they could perhaps be encouraged to share the information that you provide with their students. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone in the project knows already, but these can be handy so that everyone gets the picture ...

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		For years of brilliant and dedicated work reviewing Milhist's A-class articles. Best of luck on your advanced degree. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've not got one of those before. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't even know we had that -- seconded! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for recognising my work – I feel really honoured to receive an award and be recognised by the community. Anyway, does "Review" mean that I review others' work, or others review mine? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no worries, it means that you reviewed someone else's work. The award is based upon the quarterly tallies here, which track editor involvement in reviews. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)

G'Day I have just been reading the DYK nominations and it seems 7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia) is waiting a response from yourself. That aside hope your return to the colours is going OK. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Thanks for letting me know. I didn't actually nominate it, though; I think someone else did. Unfortunately, I don't actually have the time to review someone else's DYK at the moment - I'm heading off on a couple of courses on the weekend so I'm stuck doing pre-course reading and assignments. Other than being quite busy and finding ways to annoy WO1s (never a good thing to do when one is a subaltern), everything is going well in "green". Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war ongoing

Hi! There's an edit war going on at Battle of Cortenuova. A recent user is endlessly reverting my recent expansion of what was a mere stub, to a version based on 19th century, non-Italian sources, full of some strange features such as unjustified capitalization, wrong naming of Italian cities and titles etc. Can you help? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See also his nice behaviour in this new edit. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He's also missing to follow any invitation to give a mere check to WP:Manual of Style at least... the result is that his version starts with a "Prelude" section without any lead introduction. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I don't really have time to look into this in too much depth. My suggestion is to approach an admin and see what their take is. You can post a request here WP:ANI, if you feel the situation warrants it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:OPN#Animation for Brécourt Manor

Do I recall that you said this was taught in one of your classes? Do you by chance have a map or detailed description saying who went where when? The Band of Brothers book and TV series don't nail everyone down. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes we looked at this at RMC. There was a pretty good graphic with proper mil symbols, but I don't have access to it. Also, it was created using Army-owned software by military personnel as part of course material produced through the DTM, so it is copyrighted. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, when someone does an animation, perhaps you can look at it to see if anything looks off. Just the fact that the RMC did something cool like that helps support my position that that level of detail is warranted in our article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

Hi, I'm going to have another (and now very belated) go at bringing this article up to date over the next few days. I haven't been through it carefully yet, but the things which most obviously need to be fixed is the Defence expenditure and procurement and Current priorities sections, which are about 4 years out of date(!). All the information about deployments and equipment holdings is also outdated, though only by a year or two. The 'Assessment of capabilities' section needs an update, but is probably basically OK (the ADF hasn't gained any significant new capabilities in the last few years, and these would have to be offset against the collapse of its amphibious warfare capability anyway). I'd like to add a section on the role of reservists, but it's really hard to find a comprehensive source of information on this topic! Is there anything else which you think is crying out to be updated? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nick, good luck with this project. It would be great to see it updated. I think the section on women in the ADF will need to be updated in light of recent announcements from the Army about service in combat arms such as the infantry, etc. The domestic responsibilities section could possibly be expanded (but only a little bit) to mention recent DACC operations: Queensland Flood Assist, Yasi Assist, etc. If you include a section about the role of the Reserves, can I suggest you mention efforts by the government to support employers to release personnel for service, the use of Reservists on peacekeeping operations and 1 Cdo Regt deployments, and round out for Regular unit deployments. In regards to sources, you might consider using some media releases and newspaper articles, but I agree, there are very few comprehensive sources. I'm heading off on course tomorrow morning, so unfortunately I won't be much help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'll take those points into account. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)

Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessing WikiProject Military / WikiProject Miliary (Australia)

User:AustralianRupert,

I've decided to come back and started to assess the Military Articles. I will be still doing the "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" re-write but it's on my subpage in "Biographies" not the actual article itself. Hope to see more of you on Wikipedia! Adamdaley (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew Cumming - Peer Review?

Could you "Peer Review" Talk:Andrew Cumming Biography? I would appreciate it. Adamdaley (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam, sorry I'm very busy at the moment. I'm on an Army course at the moment and don't have much time available for Wiki anymore. I've had a quick look at the article and I think that it is looking pretty good. It will need more detail to progress beyond C class, though, IMO. Date of birth, early life, etc. Sorry, I couldn't be of more assistance. User:HJ Mitchell is a bit of an expert on British generals and he does good work, so he may be able to provide more assistance. Good to see you back by the way. Keep up the good work. I appreciate it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

22nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment

Would mind doing little copyedit/assessment on this article? 22nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment, Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Damon. I've had a look and done a quick copy edit. I feel it needs a couple more citations for B class, but I've assessed as C class. I've added tags where I think they are needed. Please check that you agree with my edits and that I didn't change anything incorrectly. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you Sir! Hope you are having a good summer!Aleutian06 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Katia Thanks

Thanks once more for your interest and your valuable suggestions which have been incorporated. Regards --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent copyedit work its are very much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Roslyn. I'm sorry I won't get to finish it off. I'm off on an Army course for a month and won't have access until late September. I wish you all the best with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Its been successful largely due to your help - much appreciated. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox New Guinea

Hi, I was just having a look at some articles and noticed that the template Template:Campaignbox_New_Guinea appears to have been changed and some battles renamed in the template to 1st Rabaul and the like. I do not know of them being called as such or whether this is a WP guideline, etc. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes that does seem strange. I don't know of any reliable sources that refer to those topics in that manner. I have reverted the changes and asked the editor who made them to discuss on the template talk page. It might be that they know something we don't, in which case they can simply revert my revision after the discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will be interesting to hear a response from the editor. Newm30 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your note on WT:MHCOORD

You said you were leaving for a month, so I just want to wish you good luck and safe travels. We'll keep the wiki running until you get back. :-) Would you like me or someone else to nominate you for coordinator while you are away, or will you have intermittent access that will allow you to do the honors yourself? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. Thanks, mate, I appreciate the support. It will be an interesting course. Mainly Reservists on the panel; I will be one of the few Regulars. I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing, but anyway. Regarding net access, I'm going to be out in the bush a bit and the work computers are disabled from editing Wiki, so I won't be able to get on for the whole month. I've decided not to run for co-ord this time around, though, so please don't nominate me. Thank you for the offer, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll be missed. Let me know how the course went when you get back. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, but at least you'll still be around the wiki when you get back! Again, good luck; Milhist is much poorer when you are not around. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ap Bac

Hi mate, I highly appreciate your feedback on the Battle of Ap Bac, and I will work on your suggestions in the coming days. By the time your back on Wikipedia, the article will probably be knocked out of the A-Class assessment queue so if you have more feedbacks, please drop a line or two in the talk page of the article. I will have another go at A-Class.Canpark (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Running for Coordinator 2011 - 2012

I would like to say I am sorry you are not running for another term for Coordinator for the WikiProject Military History. I've decided to run and I feel I am doing well so far. Also, would like to mention I got my second Barnstar yesterday from Sp33dyphil, so I've put the one you gave me and the one he gave me onto my Userpage. Hope to hear and see you again on Wikipedia! All the best with everything in your life. Adamdaley (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

AustralianRupert,

I would like to thank you for giving me your vote in support for being a Coordinator in the WikiProject Military History. I do appreciate it very much. Unfortunately, "we" (you and me) will not be Coordinator's at the same time and we will not be working together. I'm sure we'd still work together in the future on Wikipedia. Don't hesitate to drop me a message on my Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Adam, I'm sure you will do well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Stuff Already .....

AustralianRupert,

First full day, and another Coordinator (The Bushranger)is questioning why I do the WikiProject templates on the Discussion page the "long" way instead of the "short" way. You've been there for me in the past and I appreciate it. To make this short, you can see it on my Discussion page. Enjoy having more time off Wikipedia and in real life. You deserve it. Adamdaley (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Adam, jumping in as a talkpage stalker. I don't think there was anything wrong with your edit at all, its probably just a case of different ways of achieving the same end. I agree with you that keeping the B class criteria even in GA articles is a good idea and like to do that when I close GAs too, for the very reasons that you mentioned in the other thread. The only thing that I do though is remove the commented out instructions per what The Bushranger was suggesting. This just cuts down on the wasted bytes of keeping them after the B class assessment is complete. For example I just write: B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y, rather than:

<!-- B-Class checklist -->

<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

|B-Class-1=yes

<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|B-Class-2=yes

<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|B-Class-3=yes

<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-4=yes

<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|B-Class-5=yes

I hope this makes sense. Also I added the banner shell markup which tidies the banners up a bit further. Of course its up to you if you want to do that in future too though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, gents. I usually use the shortened form ("B1=y |B2=n...etc"), mainly because I'm lazy, but it can also save load time on a talk page (slightly). Having said this, there is nothing wrong with the long form either, IMO. In fact, it has some benefits. For example, it may help newer reviewers/editors understand what each criterion means. In this case, I think it is just a matter of personal preference. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what the two people at the time was saying that it would help new editor's understand what WikiProject was what and what each attribute was etc and due to their BOT who also did alot of the work. Adamdaley (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and also, I follow the template not who say's what is right or is the wrong way to do things. As long as the template is there and people can see it. Adamdaley (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Featrued article candidacies and A-Class reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Buggie. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey AustralianRupert, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Dahlen

Thanks for the review. Do you really think that after a copyedit the article may meet the GA criteria? In that case, what should I do? --Frabute (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure as I don't know much about the content side, sorry. It would possibly need some more recent sources, too, but it might be able to make it to GA. My suggestion would be to put it up for a peer review and see what some others think of it. If it gets a good review, you could then nominate it for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank you very much ;) --Frabute (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Parachute Brigades

Hi nice to see you back. Yes it was that Hastings thanks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jim, no worries. It looks like you have been busy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I eventually got the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic together just waiting for comments. Jim Sweeney (talk)

58/59th Battalion

Howdy. Ok done some digging and got quite a bit:

Palazzo, 2001. The Australian Army;

• p. 102:
• Table 4.5. Organisation of the Army, 1928: Major formations and units:
  • 3rd Military District, 15th Infantry Brigade: 57th, 58th, 59th, 60th Bns

• p. 150:
• Table 5.6 Organisation of the 3rd Division, September 1939:
  • 15th Infantry Brigade: 57th/60th, 58th, 59th Bns

Kuring, 2004. Redcoats to Cams;

• p. 111:
• Table 10: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1934:
  • 3rd Military District - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
    • 58th Battalion (The Essendon Rifles)
    • 59th Battalion (The Coburg-Brunswick Regiment)

• p.112-113:
• Table 11: Infantry Battalions of the Austrlaian Military Forces, 1939:
  • 3rd Military District - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
    • 58th Battalion (The Essendon-Coburg-Brunswick Rifles)
    • 59th Battalion (The Hume Regiment)

• p. 215
• Table 12: Australian Infantry Battalions and Units on Active Service During World War II:
  • Militia Infantry Battalions
    • 58th/59th Battalion

Perkins, 1994. Regiments: Regiments and Corps of the British Empire and Commonwealth 1758-1993: A Critical Bibliography of their Published Histories;

• p. 672
• 58th/59th Battalion:
  • Battalion history: "Militia Battalion at War: The History of 58/59th Australian Infantry Battalion in the Second World War" by Russell Mathews, Halstead press, Sydney, 1961
  • Review of book: "The Bn was an amalgam of the 58th and 59th Bns which, having fought in WWI, survived the inter-war years as Militia units in Victoria. Mobilised in August 1942, it went a year later to Port Moresby. The book has clear interesting coverage of the Wau and Salamaua actions (1943) and the operations in the Ramu Valley and the Finisterre Ranges (1944). After refitting and reinforcement in Australia, the Bn took part in the battle for Bougainville."

Palazzo, 2002. Defenders of Australia: The Third Australian Division;

• p. 108:
  • "As the crisis in New Guinea deepened, the army decided to reorganise the 3rd Division for deployment to Port Moresby. On 27 August [1942], the Division linked the 37th and 52nd Battalions, to form the 37th/52nd Battalion, and the 58th and 59th Battalions, to form the 58th/59th Battalion."; and
  • "In September, Savige disbanded the 10th Infantry Brigade and redistributed its personnel. Its two battalions joined the remaining brigades. The 24th Battalion went to the 15th Infantry Brigade, with the 37th/52nd Battalion moved to the 4th Infantry Brigade... The Division's infantry organisation now consisted of: 4th Infantry Brigade (22nd, 29th/46th and 37th/52nd Battalions) and 15th Infantry Brigade (24th, 57th/60th and 58th/59th Battalions). When the Army had re-raised the 3rd Division in 1921, there were twelve battalions on its establishment. Now there were just six." Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, mate, that's a big help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

MOS and numbers and things

Hi AustralianRupert. Just a quick note to thank you for your open-minded attitude towards my preferred formatting of numbers on the GA review for 5th Parachute Brigade. I usually change disputed numerical representations to match the reviewer's preferences, but your cautious wording left rather more leeway, which I think has benefitted the article.

As I understand WP:ORDINAL, it considers three separate cases;

1. numbers from zero to nine, which are normally spelled out in words
2. numbers greater than nine that would require more than two words to spell out; these are normally rendered in numerals
3. numbers that are greater than nine that would only need one or two words to spell out; these can be either spelled out in words or rendered as numerals.

The common confusion seems to stem from people reading this quickly and remembering it as two simple cases; numbers greater than nine always to be rendered one way, and numbers nine or less always to be rendered another way. This isn't what the MOS actually says, though - it quite specifically makes clear that numbers in the third category can be rendered either way. Personally I almost always choose "ten" or "sixty" over "10" or "60" unless it's covered by one of the other situations that the MOS lists; it looks really wrong to me the other way, and it certainly isn't common practice in modern historical works (or even serious journalism) written in British or Commonwealth English. (Not so sure about U.S. English).

The other problem with the simplistic interpretation of the MOS is that it can also encourage text like "10 6 pounder guns" instead of "ten 6 pounder guns", and I think there the problems are doubly clear. (I haven't actually seen this example in text yet, though!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, I will try to read the MOS a bit more closely. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Whitelaws

a) I can't find any birthdate info on Fred or Norm, nor can I find Norm's date of death.
b) How does one locate their military records?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the National Archives might be able to help with the service record: [1]. Also, the AWM might have something. I found this for Fred: [2]. No dates, though, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is some sort of transcript of an interview with Norm: [3]. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ta! [2] & [3] will keep me busy for a while! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I found this relating to John (1921-2010): [4]. I'm not sure, but I think the Wiki article might be incorrect regarding the dates that the younger John joined the military. The interview with Norm and the Age article indicate 1937, rather than the 1939 mentioned in the Wiki article currently. Additionally the point about radar actually probably relates to the father, not the son. I might be wrong, though. I note that on the John Whitelaw (1921-2010) article, PMKeyS is being cited as a source. My personal opinion is that this should not be included. Its not really a verifiable source (except for those with access) and including information from it might actually breach Defence's privacy regulations (not sure). The safest policy, I think, is just to use external, open sources. That is just my opinion, though, and you are welcome to disregard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment

Thanks for working on this article, sorry to have gotten in the way. Didn't realize you were working on it when I barged in.Aleutian06 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, mate, I've made all my edits now. One question I have relates to the Battle flags section - is the description a direct quote? If so, it should probably be placed in quotation marks and have a citation beside it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

68th NY

Thanks for the GA review. I think I've addressed most of the issues you raised. I left notes at the GA review page. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I've passed the article now. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello AustralianRupert! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

American Civil War Task Force Barnstar

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		I award you the American Civil War Task Force Barnstar for stalking and correcting my every mispelling and formating errors on Arkansas in the Civil War related articles. Thanks Mate! Aleutian06 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I will pass this time. I'm not working on the Bugle at the moment. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		In recognition of your dedicated contributions to the Military history WikiProject during your tenure as coordinator, particularly as exemplified by your diligent and helpful participation in A-Class reviews and by the kindness with which you treated nominators and reviewers", I am proud to (rather belatedly) award you the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. Wear them proudly. Buggie111 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |}