This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:AustralianRupert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'll reply to your message here.


Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).


Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing an incredible total of 38 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To my Mate in Oz[edit]

Thank you for fielding Pendright's concerns on my talk page. Pendright often asks me for advice on articles he is working on. I became familiar with his work when he was working on the Coast Guard's SPARS article. I appreciate your help on his efforts to get the articles he works on to GA or A class. I commend you for your efforts to keep the Milhist Project one of the best projects on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware the I had any page stalkers following my efforts! I have been busy with the after effects of the death of my wife in November, and while her death was not totally unexpected it still changed my daily routine. She had suffered from the effects of multiple sclerosis for the last twenty years. She was a good old gal and always had a sense of humor even in her last days. I shall miss her. My contributions to Wikipedia have fallen off recently as I was caretaker for my wife and had other life concerns to take care of. I mostly patrolled articles for vandalism and simple formatting problems. With the new year I may be able to get back in formation with some more regular contributions like review of articles in the Milhist Project. My jeep restoration project which I originally took of from Wikipedia for has been completed and I plan to take some time this fall for a trip to the Colorado mountains with one of my brothers. He was a Vietnam veteran like myself and we have a lot in common.

I noticed that you have had a change of duty stations at some time in the last year or so. I hope your new duties in the north of Australia are challenging without being too onerous. I trust your family is all well and with you at your new assignment. You have certainly taken on more than your fair share of Wikipedia tasks recently and I hope that you don't have burnout on that score. The Project would miss your contributions and leadership. Again, thanks for standing in my stead for Pendright. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cuprum17: G'day, mate, the family is well, thanks for asking. Our three-month-old is keeping us on our toes, though, as is the three-year-old. I am really sorry to hear about your wife passing. Please accept my condolences. It must be very hard to adjust after being with someone for such a long period of time, to not have them around anymore. Equally, it must have been very hard watching someone you love suffer so much. I hope that 2018 will bring you better fortune. Regarding my posting in Darwin, actually this is my fourth year here now. It is very different from my previous postings (which were mainly on the eastern seaboard, and in the south), but it has been quite enjoyable. After a couple of years in a command role, and then ops/plans, I have a new role this year, which will be a bit challenging (battalion/regimental XO and ADJT) so I suspect that I will be pretty busy but in a very different way. I still have a week of leave left, but after that I will be scaling back my time online again. Anyway, all the best. Take care of yourself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Query about speedy deletion of Halitrephes page[edit]

Hi. So I recently edited the page on Halitrephes maasi. I saw a notification on the talk page of the article's creator speedy delete tagging an article they'd created called Halitrephes. The reason was that it was a duplicate article of Halitrephes maasi. This seems incorrect. Halitrephes maasi is the species, while Halitrephes is the genus of that species. They are two different topics. Further I'm skeptical one editor would have created two articles on the exact same thing. I was going to comment on the talk page of the deleting admin requesting undeletion, but I see that the reason you've given for deletion is G7 as opposed to duplicate article. As such I'm wondering if you could check whether there is anything worth salvaging and whether you think undeleting is worthwhile in the circumstances? Brustopher (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Brustopher, it was G7ed as it was blanked by its author. From what I can tell it was very similar to Halitrephes maasi page, with the same WORMS reference and pretty much the same opening (and only) sentence (with a slightly different final clause mentioning "East of Socorro Island" rather than "the Peruvian part of the South Pacific Ocean"). Probably not much to gain with undeleting it, IMO. The only real improvement in the deleted article, IMO, was the presence of an extra image (File:Halitrephes Maasi.jpg). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sir John Monash Centre[edit]

Good afternoon, AustralianRupert. I've had a look at the above, following a request from the editor on the AfC Helpdesk. I absolutely agree that the sources as they stood didn't support Notability independent of the Villers–Bretonneux Australian National Memorial. However, I've added about a dozen, and I think they might do now. It's a A$100 million project and also has some Notability due to the centenary opening this April. I didn't want to Accept without giving you an opportunity to express a view, so if you had a chance to take a look, I'd very much appreciate it. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article. I don't have a drama if you wish to publish it. I'm still not sure that it is independently notable from the memorial, but I agree the draft has been significantly improved and is acceptable for publication. There may be more coverage when it's launched, also, which might help expand it a bit more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Appreciated - I think you're right and we are likely to get some good RS coverage around the opening. Out of interest, do you happen to know if there's any opposition to it in Australia. I came across one blog that described it as a colossal, flag-waving, Tony Abbott vanity-project but it was only a single blog. But there also seems to have been a parliamentary inquiry? And this [1] suggests a degree of controversy. It would be good to reflect any, significant, opposition. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day, actually I hadn't heard anything about it, until I saw the draft. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The Sir John Monash Centre is definitely notable: it will be a fair sized museum housing some of the Australian War Memorial's collections, and has cost a fortune to build. It's received a reasonable amount of coverage, some of which has been critical. The article looks good to go IMO. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks - I've pushed the article through and the originating editor's committed to expanding it further. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Would like to have your opinion[edit]


I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I think a split makes sense, but I'm not really familiar enough with the topic to offer much more than that, I'm afraid. It looks like there is already a reaonable consensus that a split is necessary, so I won't pile on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018[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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nine years of editing[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, AustralianRupert. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133[edit]

Hello, Very sorry to trouble you again. But, I would like your opinion as a military project member, when you have the time, thank you. I did the article Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133. I just had an editor delete important external links with no explination. Then they came back and destroyed the image format with no explanation for that either. Prior to my doing this article the battalion had three hotlinks for its History on it's facebook page. When I completed this article the battalion made Wikipedia it's sole history link. Three weeks ago Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11 left a special request on my talk page requesting that I do an article for them similar to the 133's. I have that submitted now. But, I have also done the NMCB 25 article and Seabee Is it a requirement of a Wikipedia article to be visually uninteresting? Can editors just change an article's images willy nilly with no regard to placement? 133 built the entrances to the Marine Corps cemetery on Iwo Jima. It seemed to me that the fitting placement of those images was at the end of the article. Look at what has been done. This editor's talk page states that they review new articles. They edited the NMCB 11 article but, it is still in my sandbox? In that article they removed the image of the only Seabee to be awarded the Medal of Honor along with his medal. Do editor's get reviewed for the editing they do to articles? What has happened here is not the same thing as checking the grammar, spelling or bare URLs. Thank you again for your time.Mcb133aco (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. Unfortunately, I don't have much time tonight so I haven't had a long look at the articles you reference. However, I think a couple of things need to be considered here. Firstly, please remember that assuming good faith is a key policy here. Please consider that most editors (whether they get it right or not) are usually trying to do what they think is right. Second, please be mindful that other editors have a right to work on the encyclopedia, too. None of us WP:OWN the articles we work on, even those in draft space. This can be a very frustrating element of Wikipedia, but it can also be one of its strengths as it promotes collaboration and diverse opinions and approaches. It is indeed the way all of our featured articles are produced (they go through a formal review process where many editors offer opinions and advice, etc). Anyway, I think the best advice I can give you is if you disagree with a change someone has made, post a message on the article talk page, or on their talk page, asking them to clarify why they've done it. This can help you to understand, and potentially learn, or it can help you establish consensus about why their change may not be for the best (if that is the case). With specific reference to the image situation, it is important to maintain balance within an article. Of course, articles look better with images; however, we cannot always use them (due to licensing issues), and also there are issues of balance. For instance, it is important not to include too many images, because that can take the focus off the prose (which is the main aspect of the article), and to ensure that the way they are placed within an article in an appropriate way. This link might help: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Anyway, I'm afraid I have to turn in for tonight. Early start for duty tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. You wrote a great deal that I do not believe is applicable to what I came to you with, but I do want to thank you for your reply. I have some considerable schooling in photo and worked for a publisher at one time. I do have an understanding of article layout, structure and visual presentation. Twice now I have had the same image removed from an unpublished article, the only Seabee to be awarded a Medal of Honor. That is almost a news story. Additional questions I have for you are: Does Wikipedia require that all images be a thumb and preferably be placed on the right? Does Wikipedia presume that readers are visually illiterate and require written text under every image? Thank you again for your time and consideration.Mcb133aco (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

ACR Source Question[edit]

Hi. Would you be able to advise on whether lack of author info in sources is a problem for ACR? This question has come up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo. I'm not sure where we stand on this. Factotem (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello. May I ask a question? On Landings at Cape Torokina you (or maybe Hawkeye) used oclc's rather than isbn's, even for relatively recent publications. I'm in a little information-gathering period these days. My question is, is there some reason why you prefer oclc's over isbn, or did you just kinda go with one over the other for no big reason. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I usually use ISBNs if they exist for a source, but I'm not really fussed either way as they both seem to do the job, IMO. Is there are particular entry you'd like changed? I can have a look if you want. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I wasn't hinting anything about changes or anything else. I was actually just gathering info. Tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed BlurpeaceDana boomerDeltabeignetDenelson83GrandioseSalvidrim!Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


Hey @AustralianRupert: first of, thanks for the help on Operation Safari. I am currently trying to work a bit on Draft:Wehrmachtbefehlshaber and reached a bit of a wall. If you have time and feel like it, I would appreciate some help/feedback/etc. Regards Skjoldbro (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: G'day, that one isn't really up my ally, unfortunately. My only real suggest would be to expand the lead to summarise the article a bit more. For instance, in the lead you could mention that the were ten positions, you could mention when they were first created, and how many individuals held the appointments, perhaps. You could potentially also clarify what the responsibilities of the position entailed. For instance, were they actively involved in commanding operations in the field, or really just a figurehead? In terms of sourcing, I think you will need to find some more diverse sources as currently it all seems to be from the Axis History website. Anyway, sorry I couldn't be of more help. Thanks for your efforts. Good luck and all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018[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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


G'day i have two questions for you, first question can i use this icon (below this line) of Britsh or the American or even an other English dialect in some pages without asking someone or do i have to make some requests on their talk pages cause i want to put the icons in the pages who are at least GA-class.

{{British English}}

Second question can i have your opinion are this rebel groups part of a conflict

Breton Region
Breton Revolutionary Army
Breton Liberation Front
Corsican Region
National Liberation Front of Corsica
Armata Corsa
Provençal Region
National Liberation Front of Provence
Catalan Region
Catalan Red Liberation Army
Catalan Liberation Front
Terra Lliure
Catalan People's Army
Galician Region
Resistência Galega
Exército Guerrilheiro do Povo Galego Ceive
Liga Armada Galega
Loita Armada Revolucionaria
Sardinian Region
Sardinian Armed Movement
Fronte Nazionale de Liberazione de sa Sardigna
Movimentu Nazionalista Sardu
Canarian Rigion
Fuerzas Armadas Guanches

I know that most of the groups did killed not a lot of people i just want to know then i'd make a page like the Insurgency in Northeast India a major conflict with some low conflicts. I had an idea to make some pages called Insurgency in Spain, Insurgency in France and one in Italy called Insurgency in Italy then i can put some other groups like left-wing rebel groups and right-wing rebel groups. So i can make some low conflicts like the Galician conflict, Corsican conflict and more. I know it would be a lot of work but i think it's worth it or i'll make some drafts (if there is almost no information) for in the futere before they want to merge or delete it what do you think i think they want war and they need a page if they are really making a conflict there. Anyway cheers and have a gread day. CPA-5 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, with regards to your first question, it depends. If it is clear cut, then you probably don't need post on the talk page first; however, if it appears to be a bit ambiguous about what variation applies, or there has been some contention in the past, it is best to post on the talk page first. Regarding your second question, I wouldn't suggest creating an overarching article unless it is clear based on sources that such a concept exists, otherwise it would be original research to group them into an overarching conflict. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
G day thanks for the questions however about the second question are those situations really conflicts. I mean, have these situations the characteristics for consideration as a conflict. If it is so then can I make some separate conflicts and not overarching articles, even there are not a lot of people who died in situations or should I make some drafts then we can wait until there are more informations. CPA-5 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know the answer. These aren't organisations or conflicts I have any knowledge of. It might help to post your query on the main MILHIST talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see, i'll surly upload this issue on the MILHIST talk page, cause I think they're fighting on an urban guerrilla warfare way. I was even thinking to make some conflict articles for some left-wing rebel groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation, the Action directe, the First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Groups, the Red Army Faction and more. But also for some right-wing rebel groups like Youth Front, Triple A (Spain) and more, since the begin of the Cold War they are fight against the governments, but I am not sure or they are a conflict. Should I put also the left-wing and right-wing rebels issue in the MILHIST talk page? Anyway thanks again and have a great day, cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Military history A-Class medal with Swords[edit]

WPMH ACR (Swords).png The Military history A-Class medal with Swords
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with Swords for your excellent work on developing Bougainville counterattack, New Britain campaign, and Landings at Cape Torokina to A-Class status. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations also from me. It was great working with you on the first two of these articles, and the third is a fine piece of work. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Cheers, Nick. I'd be keen to work with you again. Have been thinking for awhile that 6th Division (Australia) might be that opportunity. I'd need to get a few books through the library first, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe[edit]

G'day Rupert. Many thanks for your comments on this. Just what I was after. "are there any other sources that you could use beyond Stacey that talk about the incident in relation to whether it was a war crime?" One of the things which most fascinated me about this incident when I stumbled across it was the almost complete absence of censure. Stacey is the most critical (and he lied through his teeth in the official history and was economical with the truth in his autobiography) while most accounts even today tend to "they had it coming". Vokes seemed to positively glory in his role. So, sadly, I am struggling to expand this section. I could say a lot more, but would stray into original research and this is too delicate a topic for that. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, you can only write what is covered in RS. Your changes look good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonexistent portal[edit]

Can you remove the link to United States Department of the Army Seal.svg portal on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Kevin Musker (locked page)? It's one of two links to the bogus(?) portal which IMHO doesn't need to exist. I'm about to delete the other. Thanks in advance.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, there's another one on he same page. I looks like an editor tried to pipe a portal without realizing that "portal" takes multiple parameters. I wonder how many of those are out there?<sigh>--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
G'day, I am a bit wary about boldly adjusting this page at this stage, sorry, as it has been fully protected specifically to ensure that "integrity of the archived hoaxes is preserved" as per the note here Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Is there a discussion somewhere that you can link me to, to work out the background to your request? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand. There's no discussion anywhere that I know of. I first saw the red link on Steven Dale Green and checked to see how often the page (portal) was linked. There were only two and I removed the one on Green. I figured this was just simple maintenance.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your collaborative and congenial nature. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:7&6=thirteen submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

AustralianRupert has been at the forefront of editing military history and Australian articles. He has been in service for almost 80,000 edits (99+% with edit summaries) and over 8 years. He is courteous and helpful. Many years ago he went out of his way to teach me about electronic foot noting. Give a man a fish... etc. When help was requested he was on it. The very soul of a collaborative and cooperative member of the project. An appreciated and valued mentor. A prolific and precise editor who has been making things better behind the scenes. But don't take my word for it. See here.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Flag of Cornwall.svg
Of Cornish Desent
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning February 25, 2018
Courteous and helpful and a leading editor of military history and Australian articles. Collaborative and cooperative.
Recognized for
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  21:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for this! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).


Administrator changes

added Lourdesdagger
removed AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike V
dagger Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.



  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

HMS Vanoc (H33)[edit]

G'day Rupert. A query. My understanding was that one can self assess an article , even if one has worked on it oneself, up to C class. But your submitting this with a specific request that it only be assessed for C class makes me suspect that I am mistaken. I would be grateful for brief clarification.

My copy editor instincts kicked in I am afraid. Obviously revert anything you aren't happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: No worries, Gog, thanks for your edits. Yes, one can self assess up to C-class, but in this case I felt I'd prefer a second set of eyes as it was quite late and I'd already made a couple of mistakes with my edits on the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Check mail[edit]

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018[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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Feb contest results and changes to "rules"[edit]

Hi AR,

Firstly, can I express my sincere disappointment at the lack of leadership (silence) demonstrated by this tranche in what is something of a crisis. Pardon me if I appear to exaggerate but by I perceive this is a matter that affects the integrity of the project at a number of levels and should have been resolved by now. There is an issue of natural justice for both Gog and other competitors - specifically, a matter of timeliness. The "result" must be fair and seen to be fair to all concerned (ie, bot Gog and other competitors). I find it hard to believe that in a tranche of 13 members, we have obtained such little input into these two discussions. In my military experience, there is no failure to make what might ultimately prove to be the wrong decision, provided it was well considered in respect to the information available at the time. The most egregious and culpable failure of command is to vacillate and fail to make a decision when circumstances demand action - even if this is a conscious decision to wait and prepare, rather than vacillating and waiting for circumstances to dictate action and steal the initiative. I have made an edit to the contest page to foreshadow potential changes. I think this demanded action and appologise (sort of) if this was inappropriate. On the matter of the Feb results, I have indicated a solution, which is to ask Gog to do a self-reassessment. This is contingent on the foreshadowed changes and without prejudice to how these might pan out. I have been very tempted to approach Gog but am loath to do so as this might exceed my authority to act on behalf of the Tranche without some support. I note PM's support. I have not referred to Gog there by his proper user name, by which he might have received notifications. It was not my intent to exclude Gog from the discussion but, rater, to give the tranche some (short) time to consider the issues and have an informed opinion. With what has transpired (the lack of response), I regret not having pinged Gog. To conclude, I appreciate your leadership. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: No worries, I appreciate you seeing this through. For what it's worth, I think your edit to the contest page is a good idea as it will keep people in the loop. I probably would have put it on the talk page, but in reality it probably wouldn't be seen there so your solution is probably better. We may have to be bold and forge ahead with the addition to the How it works section. I also think it would be a good idea to just ping Gog and ask his opinion. Sorry, I have to head back out for a bit, so this is a bit of a drive by response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Jørgen Jensen[edit]

G'day Rupert, I don't know what went on with the pre-loaded template. It just came up with a blank screen. Has anyone been tinkering with the format? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, PM, yes I adjusted it with this edit: [2] on 16 Feb. I believe it has worked since then, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, not sure if you saw this response. Sorry, I should have pinged you in the first instance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert, I did a dummy run with a different article and it loaded, so perhaps it was just a glitch? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I did a couple of dummy runs, too, and it also seemed to work. Hmm, maybe a gremlin... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Military Medal[edit]

Just did a rewrite of the history section. I loved the Richards quote but I have not been able to find a more modern quote that expresses the view that by the Second World War the MM was held in esteem. I dropped the MC is equivalent to the MM which I hope is not controversial. Prior to 1993 Army officer gallantry awards were VC, MC while Army other rank gallantry awards were the VC, DCM and MM. Junior officers received less that 20% of the more prestigious DSO which was a senior officer distinguished leadership award and not a strictly gallantry award. So while a small number of junior officers were given the DSO it was not a real second ranked gallantry award. I ran the DCM/MM ratio query on the British Medal Forum and hopefully Chris Bate will come through with precise numbers. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Staunton: G'day, Anthony, no worries. Thanks for your efforts to update the article. Would you be able to provide the title of the article and other bibliographic details for the citation (# 5 in the article currently)? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That is a worthy phase two. I will see what I can do. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


G'day from Southeast Kansas, Mate! Thank you for helping my old buddy Pendright out on the beginning of his ACR with the WAVES article. I guess I didn't quite get done what needed to get done. It has been so long since I have done any serious work on here that I'm a bit rusty on the details of what it takes to make things click. Life issues...anyway, thanks for setting things up for Pendright. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries at all, mate. I hope things are okay for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: With your help, the WAVES article has successfully crossed the ACR finish line. That said, do you think it could stand the scrutiny of a FAR? If you’d rather not say, it’s okay. In any event, if one was considering such a nomination, do you think another copyedit would be useful, as well as a peer review before hand? Again, thank you for your help and support. Pendright (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright: G'day, to be honest, I don't have much experience with FAC, so I'm not quite sure how it would fare. My suggestion would be to take it to peer review first and see what comments come from that. A WP:GOCE copy edit might be a good idea too, so that you can get some extra eyes to look over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Good advice! Pendright (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

protection for 2017–18 A-League[edit]

Hi, thanks for protecting the page recently. The minute the protection expired, the page was changed again. Maybe worth re-adding the protection for another couple of months until the end of the season? --SuperJew (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I will keep an eye on it and they come back again, extend the protection a bit longer. As this looks like it might be one of their regular IPs, it might pay to place a warning on their talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Vokes[edit]

G'day. Many thanks for your edits on this. Reads like a master-class in how to prepare an article for B class. I shall endeavour to learn from them. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries at all, happy to help. Thanks for your hard work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost interview[edit]

MHIST is being featured again. You are welcome to respond here. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).


Administrator changes

added 331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
removed Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news


  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.


  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

French submarine Ajax[edit]

I added the two citations on French submarine Ajax (Q148). Could you reassess it please? L293D ( • ) 02:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for adding those. As the article is actually already assessed as B class, it shouldn't need updating. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul Sanders (athlete)[edit]

Hi there - was there any useful content to salvage from the above deletion? Thanks. SFB 22:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, there was about one and a half paragraphs (about 120 words), with no references. It mentions a brief football career at Andover then athletics at Overton, Southern, and Southhampton/Eastleigh where he trained with Mike Smith. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your willingness to highlight the WikiProject Military History in the next issue of the Signpost. I've read the draft, made a few suggestions for titles and added an image. If you don't think my edits are constructive, please feel free to revert/edit/chew me out. Best Regards, Barbara   21:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello, AustralianRupert. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: G'day, received the email, for some reason it didn't give me a return address for yourself. Unfortunately, I'd have to decline that offer. July isn't a good month for me due to work commitments, I'm afraid. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I am seeking to get a coordinator from WP:MILHIST to sit on the panel, if it is accepted. I will communicate further, if it is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A little local difficulty[edit]

@AustralianRupert: Greetings, I mentioned you here [3] so leave this notice as a courtesy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day Keith, ack, thanks for the ping. Those sorts of disputes are no-win situations for everyone involved, IMO, as they tend to lead to entrenched positions that impact on collaboration. I can't see much to be gained for anyone, just angst. I'd suggest that the best way to resolve the situation would be for everyone involved to take a deep breath and a backward step, and then hold an RFC that allows uninvolved editors to offer an opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I put you in an invidious position but that discussion started to attract bystanders weighing in with speculation and uninformed opinion that got a bit personal. I think that you have credibility with the people who have credibility so your willingness to add a comment was appreciated. I'm glad you want that debate ended and I'm glad at the way you went about it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Keith, hopefully it will be resolved soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

AWM / URAA problem[edit]

Greetings! Eight years ago I uploaded File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg from the AWM for use on Archer Denness - at the time it satisfied {{PD-Australia}}. I see that things have changed. Can you point me at someone who knows how to resolve the changed situation? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I have updated the file's license as it seems a pretty clear example of {{PD-AustraliaGov}}, which now means that more files are in the public domain, including many from the Vietnam War (up to 1968). If there are still concerns, the tagging editor should take the file to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The tagging editor has removed all his tags (and is now being self-riteous about a non-AWM PD-Australia photo.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018[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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello, In my attempts to change the formatting in my worklist section for the Backlog Drive I seem to have made the worklist page inaccessible,would you be able to restore an earlier version of the page? Cdtuba (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cdtuba: G'day, no worries, it appears GELongstreet has fixed this already. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

War Museums?[edit]

G'day Rupert i have a question for you in which project of the MILHIST are war museums welcome? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: G'day, I'd say they belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military memorials and cemeteries task force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • G'day Rupert thanks for answering my question, cause i didn't know in which project it covered. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

IP-hopping block evader[edit]

The IP-hopping block evader that you and JamesBWatson previously blocked is back on Battle of Yenangyaung continuing the same thing, including reverting bots. I suggest a longer semi. Kiwifist (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, looks like Oshwah has taken care of it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I suspect that you may need one after assessing Children in the military. Thanks for doing it; it is a bit of a monster and I suspected that it might sit for a long time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Gog, it's been a long week, so a virtual beer will go down nicely! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Thank you for looking over 1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. I will work on it over the next week, and eventually put it up for GA review. If you ever decide you want to look over an article from "a different world", my latest work is Hoosier cabinet. TwoScars (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking at the 1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. You found the overlinked terms very quickly. Were those found by observation, or is there an app or bot that I do not know about? I also noticed you fixed some things on Hoosier cabinet. Thank you so much! That one gets a lot of views. I plan to put it up for peer review in a few weeks. TwoScars (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@TwoScars:: G'day, no worries, happy to help. I used a script to find the duplicate links. It can be found here: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Very useful time saver. TwoScars (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Labuan[edit]

Thanks for moving that file. It only occurred to me today that the OTRS correspondence regarding Crown Copyright means that most of the volumes in the World War II official history are clearly PD given that they were commissioned and funded by the government and published by the AWM (despite the AWM still asserting copyright over both them and the World War I series). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Nick. I had't realised that about the official histories. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord duties[edit]

G'day Rupert, I just wanted to thank you for taking on the heavy lifting (as usual) with coord duties relating to the quarterly reviewing etc. I'm absolutely snowed under with Adelaide ANZAC Day stuff, so I hope it isn't too much extra to deal with. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, PM, thanks. I hope the Adelaide march goes well. My unit is marching through Darwin again this year, so this weekend I will be ironing my pollies and polishing my medals, boots, belt, brass, and sword. So its going to be a busy one. All the best, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 39 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jan to Mar 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks, Krishna, I think we may have accidentally doubled up on a couple of the 1-stripe awards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes! Removed duplication. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Removed my signature from the tally table as well. Please add yours. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for identifying. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Krishna. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - various[edit]

  • Good day to you. Many thanks for your support for the A class nomination of Razing of Friesoythe. I also note that prior to submission the article had been pored over by not one but two of GOCE's brightest and best. They were doing me a favour as a fellow GOCE'er. Yet you managed to pick out nine copy edit issues. I am beyond astonished. And, as the author, chastened and humbled. (Which is probably good for me.)
    • Don't worry too much about this, we all miss things in our own writing. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • B class assessment of Servilius Nonianus. Apologies for missing the reference. That was sloppy of me. Now inserted and the lead expanded.
  • Yesterday I got the Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history). I was completely unaware that there were rewards for carrying out reviews. The surprise appreciation made my day, and possibly my week. It is the sort of thing which makes MilHist such a pleasant place to work. I had to search a while to find any information on review rewards; I finally found it on the Coordinators' talk page.
  • Could you tell me if signals units, eg 1st Signal Brigade (United States), should be tagged for the Logistics and Medicine Task Force?
    • Probably not, IMO. Signals isn't really logistics, it is combat support. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As a part of the Blitz I came across Eastern Zhou tagged as MilHist and so I assessed it. Thinking about it it seems odd that a country should come under MilHist; would I be correct in taking this as an error and de-tagging it? I note that some semi-nomadic groups, such as the Huns or Kutrigurs, are tagged as MilHist. Is this correct? If so I assume that similar groups such as the Khazars or the Hephthalite Empire can also be tagged? (The last in particular seems borderline to me.)
    • I'm not 100 percent on this, sorry, but I think some of those would fit, such as Huns. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops. What started as a thank you has sprawled. Feel free tpo ignore the last two queries and I'll repost them on the discussion page.

Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For your service to MILHIST over the past 5 years (maybe more) and helping many new editors like me along the way. Randomness74 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi, sorry I need to remove a sentence in the page 'Thalapathy 62', also known as 'Vijay 62'. Can you please give me permission to remove the sentence. I want to remove the sentence because it is no longer true. Thank you. WarriorCK9499 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, the article is only semi protected, which only limits very new accounts and IP addresses. As you are autoconfirmed, you should in fact still be able to edit the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

Can you assess this article against the B-criteria for MHIST?[edit]

Maritime provinces in the American Revolution. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, nice work. I have assessed the article as C-class, as there are a couple of places that are missing citations. I have marked these with "cn" tags. If they could be replaced with citations, I will re-assess as B class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for all of your help during the recent April Milist Backlog Drive. It was evident from your messages to multiple editors that you were spending a great deal of your personal time on the drive, but through it all you were patient and kind. Wishing you continued success with your ongoing research and editorial work. (P.S. I'm thrilled with the tireless contributor award. I was just trying to earn a chevron, and was keeping my fingers crossed that at least some of my contributions might qualify.) 47thPennVols (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your efforts. I will be handing out the awards shortly. To be honest, that will probably the last drive that I will run. I have found my enthusiasm for Wikipedia declining steadily for several years. Really just hoping to try to build up a core of editors in the project, so that I can retire from co-ord duties in the knowledge that there are others keen to keep the lights on. Sorry, that sounds a bit depressing, doesn't it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.



  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


G'day Rupert, just back on deck now after ANZAC Day. Thanks for handling the whole drive thing, I have basically been AWOL and haven't had time to scratch myself over the last month. With Anotherclown's retirement, do we need to co-opt another coord? I don't have a strong view either way, just wondering if we need reinforcements through to September. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

G'day, PM, good question. I'd say it probably depends. If we co-opted someone, I think we would need to find an editor who was keen to get involved in the day-to-day housekeeping stuff for it to have any benefit. Did you have anyone in mind? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of Zawed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be glad of the extra help, and Zawed as a former co-ord, knows the ropes, so I'd say that is a good choice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll make an approach. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018[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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you reassess this article?[edit]

I hate to be a bother, but would you mind reassessing Reading Railroad massacre? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

Doesn't it seem strange to you[edit]

that IP suddenly appears and makes numerous detailed changes to specific pages, showing a deep knowledge of WP policies and procedures? regards Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but a lot of their changes required considerable clean up, too, so it is possible that they are just learning the ropes. It's probably best to AGF unless you have something solid enough to take to SPI. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a hard time AGFing when a new IP makes detailed changes to specific pages, especially having just uncovered User:TDN92 as a sock. My sock senses are tingling, but I'm not sure who the Sockmaster is. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

HMS Vulture[edit]

[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Anderson51 (talkcontribs) 02:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Upper Gun Deck20 British 6-Pounder

Quarterdeck4 British 4-Pounder Mr51and 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr51and 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Mr51and 13:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.


  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Bougainville counterattack FA nomination?[edit]

Hi, What would your views be on jointly nominating Bougainville counterattack for FA over the next week or so? I've just printed it off and read through it, and think it should be good to go after a copy edit (which I'll put in by the end of the weekend). From memory, we've consulted all the relevant sources and the article is clear and well illustrated. Happy to hold off on this if the timing isn't good for you due to other commitments, etc. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I'm afraid I don't have some of the books used anymore (James and Shindo), and I'm probably not in the right frame of mind to write much. Haven't been for a while, unfortunately. Happy for you to nominate the article when you are ready, though, and I will try my best to help out where I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I just found that I have photocopies of the Shindo and James chapters in my desk drawer! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, no worries at all. I'll polish the article up, and start a joint nomination on the weekend. Please don't feel under any obligation to contribute more than you have capacity to do though, of course, and please let me know if you'd rather that we hold off on the nomination until some other time. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick, the weekend will be fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've started the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bougainville counterattack/archive1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that at short notice I'm going to be travelling for work from Saturday to Thursday, and won't be able to contribute to responding to any comments. Apologies for this - I only found out about the trip today! I'd be happy to pick up on all comments when I return. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Nick, have a safe trip. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm going to be out of town for most of next week, and a couple of days the week after. Apologies for this: if I'd known I'd be doing this much travel I would have held off on the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Nick. I will keep an eye on the review. I have a pretty hectic time at work the week after next, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see that this nomination has now passed. Thanks again for prompting me to progress this draft, and for then doing most of the work to develop it to FA class. It's been great working with you on it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Cheers, Nick, it is always a pleasure to work with you. I wouldn't have been keen to tackle that topic alone. Congratulations on the 2nd AIF in the UK article, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018[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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Steve Smith[edit]

Please expand the "Early life" and "Personal life" sections of this page. This article may meet the criteria for "Good Article". Due to insufficient material and sources I can't do it. Please help.

Thank you so much sir.

Binod Basnet(Talk to me) 08:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day, sorry, I'm not that keen on working on this article at the moment, I'm afraid. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Good day, It's ok. Thanks.

Binod Basnet(Talk to me) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
ga day Sir

Will you check to see if "user/talk" page was successfully created? RE: Mr51and Please Thanks Mr51and 20:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Anderson51: G'day, Mr A, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to add to your user page, sorry, but it looks like you may be having some trouble understanding the html/code required to edit. In this regard, you might find the Wikipedia:Tutorial helpful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr51and 07:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Anderson51 (talkcontribs)

United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve[edit]

@AustralianRupert: it’s me again looking for a lifeline. I’ve been preparing the United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve article for an ACR and I’m ready. I’ve read the instructions you recently left on Cuprum17’s talk page regarding the WAVES AC nomination – but still having trouble. When I look at USMCWR talk page (in edit mode), I don’t see or I’m unable to identify the location of the WPMILHIST template, as you mentioned’, what I can locate is the “{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= “.
Or, are they one and the same? I know this is not rocket science, but it’s turning out that way for me. Thanks for any assistance you are willing to provide. Regards! Pendright (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright: G'day, the Milhist banner on that page is nested inside the shell. It starts here: "{{WikiProject Military history| class = Start| list = no| A-Class = ". If you are still having trouble, please let me know. I will start the nom process for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright: G'day, I have completed the nomination for you, and transcluded the nomination page on WP:MHACR. The review page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. Can I please ask that you watchlist this review page, so that you can respond to any reviews that are added there? Anyway, good luck with the review and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Done and thank you! Pendright (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for cleaning up after me, again. While I may have a skill or two, spelling does not seem to be among them. Anyway, your thoughtfulness does not go unappreciated. Best wishes! Pendright (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Australia’s Boer War: The War in South Africa, 1899–1901[edit]

Hello, do you have access to a copy of this book? I am asking this because you added information cited to it on the Battle of Elands River (1900) article back in 2012. Currently I am working on the South Australian Mounted Rifles, and don't want to have to rely entirely on 1900s sources for expanding it. Articles such as Queensland Citizen Bushmen include detailed unit information from Wilcox, and I am curious if it includes similarly detailed information on the SAMR. Thanks,Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Kges, great work on the SAMR article...the Boer War units aren't well covered on Wikipedia, so you are working in a sorely needed area. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book anymore. I borrowed it on inter library loan when I was living in Adelaide and returned it long ago. Unfortunately, the library's postal service isn't supporting my area here in Darwin at the moment. I am relocating at the end of the year for work, so should hopefully be able to get it sometime next year. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I intend to borrow it on interlibrary loan as it is held in American libraries as well. Kges1901 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]


You've protected the vandalised version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In content disputes, as a general rule protecting admins are not supposed to pick a preferred version except to remove clear policy violating contributions such as copyright violations, and defamation, for example. In this case, I wasn't sure if it was vandalism, or a content dispute, so I erred on the side of caution. My suggestion would be to start a conversation on the talk page of the article, inviting the other editor to discuss why they are removing the text. If they do not respond, then it is likely that it is just vandalism and an autoconfirmed user can simply revert it back now if they feel inclined, or you can do so once the protection has expired. Ultimately, the point of the protection is to stop the endless cycle of reverts, and promote discussion, not to promote one version over another. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Another case of The Wrong Version being protected! ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).


Administrator changes

added PbsouthwoodTheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed AndrevanDougEVulaKaisaLTony FoxWilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed AndrevanEVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.


  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Erivan (1804)[edit]

A relatively small article about a siege during a decisive period in Iranian and Caucasian history. In its current state, do you think it would pass a GA nomination, if I added a pic to it? I never nominated a proper "military history" article before, hence I thought I should ask an actual MH veteran. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: G'day, Louis, nice work. I'd say it would have a good chance, but I'm not sure to be honest. Sending it to peer review first might be a good idea. I'd suggest a couple of improvements before GAN, if possible:
  • The addition of an image would be fantastic
  • I think the lead could be expanded by a sentence or two
  • The Siege section, if possible, should explain how the siege progressed. Currently, it kind of just says the siege happened, but not how it took place. (This could include some of the strength details, and the other commanders, that are currently only included in the infobox).
  • Finally, I suggest working the Axeworthy quote into the article. Currently it is included in the Sources, but actually doesn't appear to be used in the body of the narrative.
Anyway, all the best! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks alot for your response, AR. I just sent it to peer review, added a pic to it, and fixed that reference you mentioned. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, for an excellent 23 FAC, ACR, GAN and PR reviews for the period April to June 2018, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks for your significant contribution to the Milhist article reviewing effort! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

FFA Cup scores[edit]

So it seems that Marty McFly's Sports Almanac extended to the FFA Cup! Reckon that time travelling IP address has got any of the scores correct? Hahaha. - J man708 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 Milhist article writing contest[edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For coming second in the June 2018 Milhist article writers contest, with 40 points from 10 articles, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the Milhist coordinators. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018[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) 12:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Lineage of the Australian Army[edit]

Hello, do you still have Alfred Festberg's The Lineage of the Australian Army since back in 2014 you added it as a ref to the Australian Light Horse regiment articles? I am asking because I wondered if you could check the information on the South Australian Mounted Rifles to make sure I've presented the situation accurately in the article? Lastly, to be comprehensive for GA or higher, does the article need to include information on the militia SAMR? Kges1901 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I've adjusted the page numbers a little per the copy I have here at home. I would suggest a brief "Perpetuation" section, but the lineage is very complicated, to be honest. I might be able to scan/email some pages for you if you send me your email address via the "email this user" function on my talk page. Please ping me here to let me know if/when you send me an email, as I don't check that inbox very frequently. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I have sent the email. Still, for the sake of comprehensiveness, should the article include a section on the militia unit called the SAMR? I presume there was a relationship since the members of the Boer War SAMR were supposed to be veterans of the local defense force. Kges1901 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: G'day, I've sent you some photos of the pages now via email. Hope they help. Regarding the Militia, yes I think it would be good to include something about this. I believe that many of the militia personnel volunteered for as individuals for service in the Boer War, but the militia units themselves as such did not actually deploy as a formed body. As a reward for volunteering, the units that perpetuated the militia unit later received the South Africa battle honour as an "honorary distinction/banner". Hence, the 3rd and 9th Light Horse received these banners. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

1914 links[edit]

The articles you unlinking are date articles: by DEFINITION they're related to the year articles. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: G'day, yes, I agree. Sorry for this, I was trying to unlink only a few year links on the Military of Australia portal, but I have totally stuffed it up. Humblest apologies. I will try to undo it all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

De-linking years[edit]

Please review your edits. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: G'day, yes, as per the above this was a huge misclick by myself. Very sorry for this. I'm trying to revert them all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see the above now. Goodonya. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
In these cases, it's best to execute a mass-rollback from the user-contributions-page by filtering the edits.That you've already indulged in a manual cleanup, it won't be of much-use now. WBGconverse 07:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Using the mass-rollback script in conjuction with another useful complement (so that the browser does not crash from the volume of new tabs opened:)) usually works well.Best,WBGconverse 07:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: G'day, thanks for this. I'm not quite sure where to install this, though. Do I save it into my monobook.js? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I would use common.js, unless the script or your usage would be monobook-specific. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
See my common.js as an example (copied from others) on how to load multiple .js files. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Arthur. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: Sorry, Arthur, follow up question, if I create a common.js, will that interfere with my monobook.js? Should I transfer all the scripts I have in monobook to common.js to consolidate, or can they function separately without dramas? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt. Common.js and monobook.js don't interfere with each other. Alex Shih (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand army[edit]

The new Zealand army is called the royal New Zealand army. Just like the other realms. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy and queen Elizabeth II is head of state and Commander in Chief of the new Zealand arm forces and is respresented by a govonor general. So I put her majesty on there and stop taking her off. Godsavethequeen001 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Godsavethequeen001: Like I said, please provide a citation to a reliable source that it is the "Royal New Zealand Army", otherwise you should not change it. The Army's own website does not use this designation: [5]. Various branches of the army (i.e. its corps) use the designation, but the Army itself is simply designated as the "New Zealand Army". Wikipedia policy requires references, not opinions per WP:V. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

HM is Commander in Chief[edit]

Stop taking the queen off the cammanders list. You must be a anti royal or something. Godsavethequeen001 (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't taken anyone off the commander's list. I reverted your addition of "Royal" to the name of the organisation. Equally, please do not resort to casting aspersions. It matters not what my personal opinion about royalty is. What matters is reliable sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the claim that the Queen is the commander in chief of the NZ Army. She isn't, as the Governor General of NZ holds this role. Please see [6] and [7]. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel - American mdy or British dmy?[edit]

There is concern on Rudolf Abel article whether it should be American dates or Russian. I simply typed out the article as "American English" as tagged on the talkpage. Could you help clear up the confusion. Adamdaley (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Adam, it is probably best to start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with the change, with a ping to the editor who made it. To be honest, I can see arguments for either style, but my argument would be so long as it is consistent, it probably doesn't matter. That said, I don't really see why it had to be changed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert – He's continuing the reverts. Even though there are now a mixture of date varients through the article. Please intervene to hold the article at a respectfully level of high standards. I would hate having to have done all that late night work for months and now one person thinks they are right. Adamdaley (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)