User talk:AustralianRupert

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

Reg Pollard (general)[edit]

Hi Rupert, just following up, really appreciated your comment on the article; did you feel you could do the GAN too? No pressure, just wanted to check before I ask anywhere else... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
For completing 11 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology question[edit]

Hey, Sturmvogel 66 suggested that Peacemaker67 and yourself may be to aid in a terminology discussion taking place here. Would you care to take a glance, and offer an opinion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015[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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

450 Sqn[edit]

Congrats mate, another successful co-nom... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Tks for your input along the way, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, gents! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 32nd 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) 23:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

CAPT Arthur Thomas Rogers, MC killed in action near Nauroy, France, 29 September 1918 [1][2]. Anotherclown (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/1st Machine Gun 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) 23:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1[edit]

Thanks for your review of Sieges of Taunton at A-class review. I've now listed the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias talk 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)[edit]

Hello,

When you have a chance, would you be so kind to look at Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)?

My primary goal is to get the article to B class. No doubt I have missed some grammar and such.

Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jrcrin001: G'day, I had a quick look and started some copy editing, but stopped when I realised I was probably changing too much. There are a few issues that I can see (mainly with tone, over use of headings and economy of writing), but I think it would be best if you get a broader opinion than just my own. As such, I think it might be in your best interests to put the article up for peer review and I will hold off further copy editing until then. Please feel free to revert any of my changes you don't agree with. Cheers, and have a great day! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep doing it! Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC[edit]

Hello AustralianRupert,

Dropping by to tell you that I've nominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2. You commented at the MILHIST review, I thought you might be interested in dropping a line there. Cheers, --ceradon (talkedits) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 32nd Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:32nd 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) 11:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:2/1st Machine Gun 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) 12:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gordon Bennett (general)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gordon Bennett (general) 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) 07:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gordon Bennett (general)[edit]

The article Gordon Bennett (general) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Gordon Bennett (general) 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) 00:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Paterson Clarence Hughes[edit]

Hi Rupert, this article that you recently reviewed at ACR is now at FAC. I'm heading away at the end of the month so if (and only if!) you did want to comment there, it'd be great if I could action any concerns in the coming week or so. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, sure will take a look. I wonder if I could ask a favour in return, though. Would you mind taking a look at my article on the 12th Light Horse that is currently at ACR? I think, it could probably do with a bit of your copy editing magic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, was planning to try and look over some ACRs before I go -- pls ping me if I haven't stopped by by early next week! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, not sure if you have departed yet, but if you haven't would you mind stopping by 12th LHR again and taking another run through? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Tks for ping, will aim to do so at least by tomorrow night... Cheers, 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015[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) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Frank Wead[edit]

My apologies. I overwrote some of your work while I was trying to fix Wead's flimography,--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for your ongoing help. My eyeballs are getting tired. I couldn't even find a decent obit for Wead, let alone a bio. The one bio -- which I can't find on line -- by Beigan(?) is referred to elsewhere as being inaccurate. I'm beginning to think this page belongs to the drama and literature squad.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Jim, I suspect that there must be something comprehensive out there, but it seems elusive at the moment. Thanks for your efforts, too, the article is greatly improved. It would be great if the original contributor could get involved too, as they might have some better sourcing. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Nicholas Gresham Cooke[edit]

Hi AustralianRupert, just wanted to say many thanks for your help with tidying up the article and huge appreciation for voting with those who wanted to keep it when the "fashionable furniture and sea shells expert" nominated it for deletion. I'm currently doing a series on fighter aces who had great achievements but received little publicity - many due to their less publicized theatres of war (or less glamourous aircraft) and also doing articles on the participants in the Great Escape in 1944. I only got active on Wikipedia this month and it's a steep learning curve. Thanks mate ! Researcher1944 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - second message, I just added a new article and I hope I got the TALK tag right - I copied it. Espelid was a Norwegian flying with the RAF so I wasn't quite sure. Thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, no worries at all. Thanks for your efforts. I've adjusted the talkpage tag slightly and assessed the article. It probably only needs a few more references (at least one at the end of each paragraph), for it to be rated B class. When/or if you would like to have the article reassessed, you can request this, by listing it at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, I've just added some more to Espelid and will try to track down the 2 other sources requested. I don't know how to source the Spitfire Op Training Unit one though, he couldn't have joined a Spit squadron without coming through a Spit OTU. I'll have a dig around the Spitfire website and see what I can find. Many thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

57th/60th Battalion Unit Colour Patch[edit]

I have pinched this patch from Commons and rotated to use as the 5th Battalion. Just FYI Unit Colour Patch edits. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, no worries, I think this already existed, though (created by someone else): File:5thAIF Patch.svg. Thanks for your efforts on the Unit Colour Patch page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

12th Light Horse[edit]

I see some parallel here with the issue of units that has concerned me wrt Buna-Gona. In the Sinai section 9.3 mi (15 km). Without physically checking the reference, this comes from a contemporary Australian reference, quoting distances in metric that would have been sourced in imperial. I would be surprised if the original source for this reference did not say: "Dueidar, about 9 mi away" - which has been converted, with an appropriate precision, to 15 km. It is hardly appropriate to say about 9.3 mi. This is very specific.

Significant figures is a detailed discussion but here is a simple explanation (I hope). Consider the casualty radius of a grenade at 30 yds. This might convert to 27 m. I would say that with an appropriate precision, this should be 30 m. Does the extra 3 m mean you are going to be safe? Consider a metric and an imperial soldier reporting a target indication. If they were equally good at judging distance, the same target would be at 200 m and 200 yds. It would be the same for map distances - 900 m or 1000 yds (not 980 yds). BTW, not meaning to tell you how to suck eggs!

Another example in the Palestine section is just this - across a 980 yd (900 m). There are many more examples in the 12 LH article (almost every conversion). Do hope this helps. In Buna-Gona, conversions were done manually with appropriate precision but then (with good intentions), the convert template was added without considering the precision. I have been putting of backtracking these changes. Anyhow, Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, ack, yes, starting to see where you are coming from. I've gone through and checked the examples in 12th LHR, and adjusted where it seemed appropriate. The "sigfig=1" parameter with the "order=flip" parameter (where relevant) seems to do the trick, I think, of maintaining consistency of Imperial or Metric being presented first and then maintaining the level of precision used in the source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Was looking at the article and was going to make some edits along these lines. In the Jordan and Syria section, I came upon the following: "the railway station about 0.9 mi (1.5 km) away." Perry would have given the distance as 1.5 km where his original sources would have given this as 1 mi. I am pretty certain Perry has rounded this to the nearest half km (ie a precision of ± 250 m). I cannot see a way to reconcile this except manually? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Palestine section "300–500 yd (270–460 m)" should read "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" or perhaps "300–500 yd (300–450 m)". Don't know how this could be done except manually? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
G'day, regarding the first example (0.9 mi (1.5 km)): yes, I agree it should probably be 1 mi; but equally I can't work out how to make the template do that. Regarding the second example (300-500 yd), on this one I'm not so sure. The source (Gullett) gives provides 300-500 yd, hence to remain faithful to his level of precision, we should convert with the same precision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
At the same precision, based on significant figures, it would be "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" though given 500 yds is more accurately 460 m, it might be better to report this to the nearest 50 yds (50 m) and keeping in mind that the distance (spacing) reported is 400 yds ± 100 yds and these were likely from visual estimates since the variation does not suggest anything more accurate such as pacing. It also occurs to me that the 9 mi (15 km) example earlier is probably the same as the 0.9 mi (1.5 km) just now mentioned as I think they both come from the same author(?) - our fellow has likely reported the original source's 10 mi as 15 km. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the source of the 15 km, that was Hollis, while the 1.5 km figure was Perry, so I think we need to be careful inferring things here. Regardless, I think we need to be very careful not to go too far here lest we get into original research territory (and adding an extra mile on a hunch is probably going a bit far, IMO). Equally, converting 300-500 yds to 300-500 m is also problematic, IMO, as it implies that 1 yd = 1 m, which it doesn't. The point of the conversion here is for the reader who doesn't understand what a yard is. Telling them that it is the same as a metre defeats the purpose of the conversion in the first place, which is to explain that it is roughly the same distance, but not quite. I think the "sigfig=1" parameter should probably really only be used where it is clear that figure is approximate (e.g. the source says "about" or something similar), otherwise I think mainly we should probably just faithfully convert it. In this case, Gullett is specific, so I've chosen to be, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thought they were the same. Should have checked but didn't - my mistake. It was a bit of a side thought as I was putting down the other - hence my question mark. Writing "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" is not problematic. It is not saying that yards and meters are the same. What it is saying is that, to the level of precision of the reported figures, the conversions happen to have the same values. At this precision and for these values, they are essentially the same. It is like the example of the metric and the imperial soldiers or the grenade casualty radius example. Telling a reader that 300 yds is (at this degree of precision) essentially the same as (not substantially different from) 300 m is not defeating the purpose - nor is saying "-40°C (-40°F)"- a coincidence at this level of precision but not and exact coincidence since the conversion involves Repeating decimals. Reporting "300 - 500 yds (270 - 460 m)" implies the converted figures have a precision to the nearest 10 m and infers the measurements in yards have a similar precision (to the nearest 10 yds) and IMO this is misleading. To say, "otherwise I think mainly we should probably just faithfully convert it", implies (to me) that we should be using the 'exact' conversion (or that somehow the conversion templat is perfect) but the conversion template does not report the 'exact' conversion. An exact conversion would be: 300 yd (274.32 m). The template makes certain assumptions about the precision (sig figures) of the value being converted and assumptions of the appropriate number of sig figures to be reported in the conversion. These assumptions are not always going to be right. The range 300 - 500 yds has only 1 sf figure in the value. There is nothing to suggest that any of the following zeros are significant and in the context, they are likely not. the correct application of significant figures is to report only 1 sig figure in the conversions unless there is reasonable reason to assume a greater precision - {{convert|300|-|500|yd|m|abbr=on|sigfig=1}} gives 300–500 yd (300–500 m). Another limitation is that it rounds on a decadic basis (power of 10) and does not accommodate rounding on a half-decadic basis - allowing 500 yds to be reported as 450 m. Perhaps, where the limitations of the template do not produce an appropriate outcome, a conversion should be applied manually. IMO, the purpose of a conversion is not to highlight the differences between systems of measurement. Its purpose is to allow the reader to conceptualize (appropriately visualise) the quantity given when they are not familiar with th units of the primary value. To this extent "300–500 yd (300–500 [or 450] m)" is more appropriate than "300 - 500 yds (270 - 460 m)", since it is implied the reader must conceptualize the meaning of the more precise figures in the conversion. While not as 'neat', using the quoted figure as the primary figure allows the reader to make their own inferences about the precision of the converted value. You made an analogous comment about the virtues of consistency at Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona - though in WP, on this issue, I fear it is a lost cause and consistency will likely outweigh any other merits no matter how valid. I mean this as a considered argument but not argumentative. I certainly value your opinion and feedback. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I appreciate you sharing your opinion; I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Found these links: Unit conversions and False precision Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

James Catanach[edit]

Hi Australian Rupert, I have supplied the sources which you requested on James Catanach. cheers R44Researcher1944 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great work on this and your other articles, too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

23 Squadron[edit]

Hi, 23 Squadron opperated the F-111C "Pig" for a number of years. My father was the executive officer for a number of years. So please leave my changes. Regards, MilitaryHistoryGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryhistoryguru (talkcontribs) 04:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Wikipedia requires content to be verified (the relevant policy is WP:V). That means referenced in reliable sources. Personal opinion, or experience, does not fall in to this category. With all due respect to your father, unless you can find a book, magazine, journal, or a reliable website that states this, then the information should not be included in the article. Beyond this, I'm fairly sure that No. 23 Squadron hasn't had a flying role since the 1960s, so it doesn't seem likely that they flew F-111s. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling better now[edit]

Thanks for asking. Damn acid reflux, but I think it's healed up for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear, Dan. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Arras[edit]

Thanks, it was just a quick drive-by.Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Burke's Rangers[edit]

Thanks for the excellent review. It will take a little time to go through but I'll begin making the changes this weekend. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)