User talk:Anotherclown

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 (~~~~)

WP:3RR

You appear to have exceeded WP:3RR on Template:ISAF troop deployment and International Security Assistance Force. While you treated it as vandalism, the reverts being made to these pages would not meet a 3RR exemption of "obvious vandalism". I have blocked 190.10.0.121 (talk · contribs) for persistent edit warring, the IPs 4th block for doing this. Given the circumstances, with this IP address having a long history of disruption, I do not think any further action would be helpful in this instance. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no worries I guess. Not sure how an IP persistently reverting without explaination an edit I made that was fully referenced doesn't equal vandalism (especially given that users history) but whatever. How should I have proceeded - allow the IP to make the edit and tag (for something other than vandalism)? Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Removal of referenced material and similar is not normally considered vandalism unless it is clear that the user is trying to introduce deliberate factual errors e.t.c. Such edits certainly would not meet the higher mark of obvious vandalism for 3RR exemption. However the IPs actions were still disruptive so justifying a block. In such circumstances I would kindly try to get the user to the talk page first. If this failed I would wait a bit before reverting so I don't find myself in an edit war. If "slow motion" reverting still continued without violating 3RR I would make a report or ask for assistance at a venue such as WP:AN3RR or WP:ANI. If it was vandalism I would go to WP:AIV before 3RR was a concern, with an explanation for administrators if it is non-obvious vandalism such as introducing errors. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing vandalism to ISAF Article

I appreciate your efforts towarding keeping the ISAF article accurate and free of vandalism. I have a feeling there is some miscommunication with the user (190.10.0.121) who seems to be creating vandalism right now. I like to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH and I am hoping the vandalism may be based on some misunderstanding. Anyway, it looks like we may have an edit war WP:EW on the ISAF article right now. It appears the user (190.10.0.121) has been editing Wikipedia since 2006, however, usually they leave no comments and never use article discussions. One time I was able to get this user (190.10.0.121) to leave a web page reference as a comment by imbedding a comment right next the entry that they kept editing. I was able to convert their comment into a reference. If we could get a discussion going on the ISAF discussion page then I believe it would be easy to find a consensus. Hope this helps. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Abandoned Chinese positions Korea Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2502).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Abandoned Chinese positions Korea Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2502).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorted now - you were just too quick. I was adding the licence as you tagged it, causing an edit conflict. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Abandoned Chinese positions Korea Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2502).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Abandoned Chinese positions Korea Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2502).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As above. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Maryang San

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Maryang San, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 06:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

Thanks for your updates to this article. I intend to start work on comprehensively updating it this weekend - much of its content is now outdated (some by about three years!). Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. There are a few more sections that need updating so by all means go for it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kokoda Track campaign

Hi mate, I'm trying to reference the Kokoda Track campaign article. I've added quite a few citations to it, however, it still requires more to get it to B class in my opinion. I've added the citation needed tags to where I think they're needed but for which I haven't found anything yet. If you are keen to help out, I think that you have the Brune book which might be useful. Also, I've done a bit of reworking of the sections, so if you wouldn't mind reading through it now and seeing if it still makes sense, I'd appreciate it too. There are a few other issues too, as I see it: (1) the lead doesn't adequately summarise the article, (2) there is inconsistency in the citation/referencing style, (3) images could do with having alt text added. Any help with these would also be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. Am getting smashed at work at the moment and still trying to re-write Battle of Kapyong. I will definately have a look though. Even got to work on Australia Day.... grumble. Good luck with it. Anotherclown (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, no worries, mate. Hope it all goes well. Will talk offline about it. Take it easy if you can. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled

Howdy. With the exception of the endash and the one sentence paragraphs, I don't see the advantages of your edit. Can I bother you to enlighten me please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit deleted needless spaces in the coding, that all. This reduces the bytes used by the article, nothing more.Anotherclown (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I guessed it might be something like that. Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. Note that, sometimes, "needless" is subjective, particularly when the saving is 418 bytes, and it makes no difference to the appearance of the article ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Ross McGinnis

I added some info to this article. I will be adding more in the future but I think its ready for B but let me know if you need any more changes.--Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Looks good - I have reassessed as B class now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that thanks a lot. Ill have a couple more ready in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Zeng Siyu

Zeng Siyu is the 64th Field Army commander, the one who is in charge of the Maryang San defense. I find it hard to add Peng Dehuai because he did not issue a single order during the battle. Jim101 (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I think we should also have Dehaui as he was a higher level commander who would have ultimately been in command of the Chinese Spring Offensive. Indeed for similar reasons we have Ridgeway. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your call. Jim101 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scratch what I said above about the Spring Offensive - I've been editing Battle of Kapyong and am now confusing myself.... Anotherclown (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Kapyong

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kapyong, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

John S. Loisel ACR

• Could you take another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel? Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Maryang San

I am confused over whether I should take the not done template for my comment to mean that my suggest was not done because there was no need for it or not done because you are still looking into the matter. I'm prepared to offer my support for the ACR; however the red X is in this case ambiguous - it could mean one of two radically opposite possibilities, and I would like your personal clarification before I award a stamp of approval to the ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tom. I did respond on the ACR page itself about this issue but you may have missed it. I marked it not done because I didn't make the suggested change. Specifically, infantry company names in the Australian Army are "usually" written as they are i.e "A Company" but said phonetically, i.e. "Alpha Company". This is not always the case of course (in some popular histories for instance), but is a (current) institutional practice at least. It is also the style that I have seen used in most serious histories. In this case I don't really think writing the company names phonetically would add anything. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Suoi Bong Trang

That tag is used to indicate that the notes aren't referenced in the text. Also, those references are generally linked to the corresponding notes. I did not see any such links, so I used the {{no footnotes}} tag. BTW, I was impressed by your article. It is a much better article than most of those I come across while patrolling new pages. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand, is there an issue or not? The inline citations in this article use the short reference method i.e. author, date and page and these are written in full in the References section. As far as I am aware this is fully compliant with the WP:MOS and WP:MILMOS. Are you say that you want an intext reference i.e. something like "15 Viet Cong had also been captured during the battle, as had a large quantity of equipment, including small arms and ammunition, crew-served weapons and grenades (Carland 2000, p. 180)." Thanks again for your patience in explaining this to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you link those inline citations to the notes at the bottom of the page, there won't be a problem. Thats how the inline citations in other articles are done. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean link? Can you give me an example please? Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I worked it out from WP:CITESHORT. You are talking about using the short footnote tag, i.e. {{sfn|Miller|2001|p=23}}, instead of coding it myself like I do: i.e. <ref>Miller 2001, p. 23.</ref>. That should automatically like the SFN with the full citation in the references list. Hmmm, you know this is the first time it has been suggested to me (not even during ACRs). Not sure its really a requirement of WP:MOS but I can see how it might be useful. Might have a go later but I have to go out now for a bit. Cheers again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Operation Coburg, Battle of Bita Paka, and First Battle of Maryang San, promoted to A-Class between October 2009 and February 2010, you are hereby awarded the A-Class Medal. Thanks for your exceptional work, we look forward to more high-quality articles in the future! Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)