This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:AustralianRupert

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


Your GA nomination of 3rd Pioneer Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 3rd Pioneer 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) 03:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3rd Pioneer Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 3rd Pioneer Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:3rd Pioneer 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) 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016[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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Al Ahbash[edit]

I would like to rename the article. Al-Ahbash to Association of Islamic Chartiable Projects because it is the name of the group and Ahbash is a nick name. How do I do it? Socialistmark (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, if the process is likely to be controversial, you can use the process outlined here: Wikipedia:Requested moves, which will help you assess whether there is consensus to move the page. If it is unlikely to be controversial, when you become an "auto confirmed" editor (usually after you have performed 10 edits and your account is more than four days old) you can simply move it yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page when it is in read mode. Until then, you will need someone else to move it for you. My suggestion is to post the suggestion on the article's talk page, asking for opinions about whether people agree with your proposal. Wait a week or so to determine if there is support for your proposal and by then your account should be updated to allow you to move the page yourself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Briana Roy[edit]

Hi my name is Fernelle and I Am the paid publicist for Sag Actress Briana Roy .
I am kindly asking if anyone can review her previous drafted article and
reconsider not deleting the article I am in the process of creating for her .
Briana Roy is a notable figure . She played the lead of Nina in a Hollywood movie
with actors John Cusack , Ryan Phillippe , Rachelle Lefevre , Luis Guzman and
Jacki Weaver . The movie have a Wikipedia page under " Reclaim movie 2014 " .
Briana Roy have many good sources / websites that wrote many articles about her
and the movie " Reclaim " which she played on . Briana Roy also played a guest
star role on a T.V Series " Recovery Road " as the role of Young Trish . Briana
Roy also appeared on Tyra Banks daytime talk show " FabLife " as Vip Guest " Kid
extravaganza " or you could search on YouTube " Kid Diy Sisters " Briana have done
many National & international tv commercials such as Peek-A-Boo , Kmart , Comcast
, Tide . Briana Roy also done lots of Print Ads ; such as a global Print Ad For
Nike , A National Print Ad for Avis Budget , Etc .Below are some links about
Briana Roy that I am hoping you can take time out of your busy schedule and review
. I am trying to make a page for her but unfortunately , a user already tried to
but now it says that the page is being set up for deletion and I can not make a

page . Please get back to me as soon as possible .Briana Roy name is also on

Reclaim Film Wikipedia . Please I am asking you nicely , take a look at my message
and take it into consideration and review this message . Briana Roy really
deserves a Wikipedia . She have a major fan base and she is notable . I can not write her article due to someone else already wrote it and it's up for deletion
and as Briana Publicist , it's my duty to help her grow and build a Wikipedia page
for her . I noticed it says her page is up for deletion due to abandonment , how can I prevent the article from being deleted ? 

Theroypublicist (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC) fernelle

@Theroypublicist: G'day. Thank you for your query. A couple of points come to mind. Firstly, the draft article appears to have been removed from the deletion queue due to the fact that an editor has made a recent edit to it. As a draft article, it is subject to deletion if it hasn't been edited in six months, however, now that it has been edited, that has been reset. Secondly, as with any Wikipedia article or draft, any editor can edit the page and make improvements, or make suggestions, so long as those contributions fit within policy guidelines. In this regard, there are a number of policy guidelines that I would urge you to review before editing the article. These are specifically:

As you are a paid publicist, you need to be very careful with managing your conflict of interest. As such, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help is a place where you might be able to get more specific advice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/43rd Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/43rd 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) 02:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

New Guinea Force[edit]

Have made a little tweak towards finishing if you have 2min to have a quick look. Any further suggestions always appreciated.Enderwigginau (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks. Overall, it looks quite good. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/43rd Battalion (Australia)[edit]

The article 2/43rd Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:2/43rd 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) 00:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 28 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, PM. Interestingly, I'd just gotten back online with the intention of handing out these awards, and found you'd already done it. Thanks, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bougainville counterattack[edit]

Hi, Would you like to launch a co-nomination of this article for GA status? I think that it should have legs for at least A-class in its current form, and FA is doable. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: G'day, Nick, been thinking about this myself recently, too. Yes, I'd be happy to go halves with you on this one. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, excellent. I've just started the GA nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my page titled Jervis CottonBelly[edit]

Hello, I'd like to request my page be undeleted. I haven't had time to edit to add the source. Jayson 7/23/2016 Jayswift84 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jayswift84: G'day, I will put what content was in the article into your sandbox and you can work on it there in your leisure. When you have found suitable references that prove notability etc. you can then recreate the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Knight's Cross holders[edit]

AustralianRupert, Not sure if you were aware of it, but K.e.coffman started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles. Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for letting me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with a user[edit]

Hello. I need advice from an experienced user regarding a problem that I'm having with another user. He keeps me from editing an article (reverting my edits) even though the edits are valid and sourced; not only they obbey Wikipedia's general policies but they also don't infringe the article's specific rules. The strange thing is that he admits he thinks my edit is not wrong, and yet he insistis that I must discuss the change on the article's Talk page. I went to his Talk page and asked why on Earth he was reverting valid edits and asking me to discuss them. As far as I know, valid additions only need to be discussed if they are polemical or controversial, which was not the case (I was only updating a number that was outdated by 19 years). For my surprise, he deleted my comment and wrote "Kindly get lost from my page.", which is not proper behaviour for a Wikipedian in my opinion (apart from the fact that a user's page is not really his, but a public space that follows the same rules as other Wiki pages). All in all, he seems to be acting like the owner of the article. How should I proceed ? Is this enough for a block or is there another way to solve this ? I need some admin to intervene. Also, I suspect that this user has been comitting sock puppetry. Who can investigate it further in order to find evidence for that infringement ? Thank you. Clausgroi (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I caveat my advice on the fact that from the brief diffs you have provided I haven't reached a conclusion about who is "right" and who is "wrong". Regardless, I would first suggest that you assume good faith, and post a comment on the article's talk page discussing the changes that you are proposing and attempting to gain consensus, or see if there is some sort of compromise solution. You should also be a little introspective about the matter. Regarding sockpuppetry, if you believe someone to be committing sock puppetry, you can post your concerns here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. However, you will need strong evidence and you should not be posting there for the wrong reasons (i.e. just because someone has reverted you). Finally, if someone has asked you not to post on their talk page, I think you should respect that. Their edit summary, while a little uncivil, is probably just based on exasperation. Remember that they, like you, are only human and most likely believe, like you, that they are editing in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Finally, if you are not getting anywhere, you might consider dispute resolution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves for your excellent work on 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia), Battle of the Hongorai River, and Battle of Porton Plantation Anotherclown (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).png The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves for your excellent work on Battle of Tsimba Ridge, 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia), and 2/15th Battalion (Australia) Anotherclown (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

3rd RI Artillery[edit]

I reverted your edit per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - IMO, the idea of sourcing is not to find stuff that exists - it's to find stuff that's actively used in the content. If you haven't seen it and can't cite information from it, it's not really fair to assume that it's a valid source for actual article content. That is what causes people to roll through later and go, "hey, that's not what the source says at all!" and have to rewrite it. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmm, not sure I agree. Its pretty standard to include "further reading" sections (especially in undeveloped articles) IOT point readers looking for more information to where they might be able to find it themselves. Indeed I note that another editor has now included this in just such a manner, which seems more constructive than just getting rid of it to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@MSJapan: G'day, you are correct that I haven't read the source, and if it was added it as an in-line citation I would agree with you, but that was not the case. Nevertheless, the edit was clearly sub-optimal in that I should have re-labeled the section as "Further reading" as Anotherclown says. I shall self administer an upper cut and move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, man. I'm confused. Are you seriously telling me Australia's wildlife is so dangerous that you'd rather punch yourself on the face than get slapped with a trout, or are you telling me Australians are so hardcore that getting slapped with a trout is far too weak a punishment? More seriously, the sourcing is so poor that I don't really wish to mislead readers into thinking there was material from any of those sources actually in the article, and it just seems odd to me to have "further reading" but no adequate sources, so I didn't feel it was worth keeping, that's all. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong[edit]

(Rmv--may not be relevant)

AustralianRupert, we have a truce in the debate and since only the disputed last sentence requires consensus now, the draft may not be needed. I will be reposting my other edits, but still seek third party comments on the last sentence as I disagree with Lemongirl942. Thanks. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[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) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Very short articles[edit]

I created two articles, 76th Tank Division and 77th Tank Division, based on what the available information is on each division. Can these articles ever be B-class given the available information or are they permanent starts? Kges1901 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

G'day, that's an interesting question, I wonder if it would be better to cover them together in a larger article? For instance, perhaps an article on mobilisation divisions of the Soviet Union, rather than have several short articles on the separate divisions themselves? Those titles (e.g. 76th Tank Division) could then redirect to the larger article. That would potentially allow you to create a decent B-class article. Another possibility would be to cover them in the article on the division where they would draw their cadre staff from, i.e. 50th Guards Motor Rifle Division in the case of the 76th Tank Division. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is already a list of Soviet divisions which includes mobilization divisions. Kges1901 (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing RfC[edit]

Hi! Since your have been involved in MILHIST, could you help close this discussion? Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang#RfC:_Insertion_of_South_Vietnam. This is an RfC on an article which has had a lot of content dispute in the past. I am not involved in the dispute but noticed it when I checked out the RfC. A close with a clear decision would help here. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You just closed the RfC at the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang with an inaccurate conclusion that a consensus has been reached. The editors were confused between the two topics as clarified. The were confused as indicated in the last comment:"Weird edits and refactoring? Can someone explain what is going on here? [1], [2], [3]. And what was the need to start an RFC again? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)". Some editors opine that the ARVN units weren't at the battle and thus could not have give support to the US troops at the battle. I would appreciate if you close it with a different and more appropriate reason (i.e: consensus not reach, recommend to go to the next step of dispute resolution). Thank you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A consensus is not reached yet. Three out of five editors said there were no ARVN units at the battle. How could they possibly supported the US troops?

  1. the complete lack of any ARVN combat forces in the actual battle itself, other than in a marginally relevant aftermath action, means that, in my opinion, even a mention in the Belligerents section is not justified. FactotEm (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. No South Vietnamese military units were involved. Smallchief (talk 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. there were no ARVN combat forces in the battle. David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to request a review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. In my opinion, at least five editors said they supported the proposal and that is why I closed it. I can accept that we might have a different interpretation of the consensus, but what I can't understand is why you closed the review and then after you had been reverted and I closed it, you reverted my close. Clearly, you thought it should be closed when you closed it. What changed your mind? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force[edit]

As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Kirill Lokshin can usually help with this sort of stuff. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
private project
... you were recipient
no. 225 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016[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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Referencing for Cecil E. Harris[edit]

Hey there Rupert, Cecil E. Harris is currently only lacking in references (according to review) to be moved up to B-Class. I think it's already got strong referencing but if you can think of ways to improve I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I'm sorry, but I don't really have anything that can help with the referencing for this article. Potentially, you might consider putting it up for peer review. This might draw more editors/eyes to the article, which might help with finding those citations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, AustralianRupert. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

On List of castles in Germany[edit]

After reading your assessment of the above page (title), I wanted to ask if you had any specific ideas for the improvement of the list and/or page. For my part, the only thing I could think to do I added, save writing a history of castles and such fortifications in Germany as is done here.

Vami IV (talk) Deus Vult! | 21:43 (CST)

@Vami IV: G'day, my suggestion would be to take a look at a few featured lists as they will hopefully give you some ideas about expansion. For example, here are a couple of links to feature lists about castles: List of castles in Greater Manchester, List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) and List of castles in Greater Manchester. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Question on removal of cited information[edit]

Could you please have a look at the more recent changes, or better removal of cited information, from articles like Albrecht Brandi or Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer. The removal is being justified with comments like "intricate detail", "overcite", "unneeded quote box". It is behavior like this that drives content creating editors away from Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

G'day, MB, I've had a look at these and while I feel your pain as I know that you have put a lot of work into these articles, ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that there appear to be different interpretations of Wikipedia policy with some applying a potentially more stringent view than others. Regardless of whether I totally agree with all of the edits, I'm sure that they are being done with the best of intentions. Equally, I agree that some of these sources require care in the way they are being used. That said, I do not agree that wholesale removal is in Wikipedia's best interests. Ultimately, I think a more nuanced approach would serve the encyclopedia's purposes better. For instance, where a potentially biased source forms the majority of the literature on a topic, I don't think that the encyclopedia is served well by completely gutting an article. Instead, a middle ground is possibly a better approach, whereby the commentary (e.g. sourced criticism / reviews) of the main source could in fact be included in the article with citations (albeit briefly), while the use of robust in text attribution could be used to ensure that Wikipedia's voice isn't being used to echo potentially biased sources. Having said that, one thing I'm realizing is that many of my own reviews at A class probably haven't been as robust as they could have been and no doubt have not helped set your articles up for success as much as they potentially could have. For that you have my sincerest apologies. Nevertheless, if you disagree with an edit, please remember that you have the right to revert and request a discussion until consensus has been established. Reference the quote box, for such a short quote, it possibly is not needed, although I have used them on a couple of featured articles and feel that they can serve a purpose to break up a wall of text if there isn't an image available. Ultimately, the inclusion of a quote box is largely an editorial decision (rather than a policy one, I think), so if you disagree, it should be discussed with the pro and cons of the approach being presented/explored. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2016 – September 2017

In recognition of your election to the position of Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project, I have the great honor of presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Congrats Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@TomStar81 and Ian Rose: Thanks, gents, I think we have a good team this year, but I also think we have a lot of challenges ahead of us. I would like to try to resolve the KC issue in an amicable manner that helps us retain valuable long term editors, while also keeping us in touch with the wider community, and I would like to also (somehow) reinvigorate the ACR process and expand our active pool of editors. Could be tricky, though, as a subaltern my leadership style is to just wear my uniform correctly and well, and walk ahead of the troops so that I get shot first ... actually, do these stars come in a more subdued colour? .... ;-0 Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, firstly I congratulate you on election as the Project's lead coordinator. I am also happy for that, since you are one of the most friendly and guiding editors to newcomers (as me). I have learnt a great deal from you. I was just passing by your talk page, and caught the line "I would like to try to resolve the KC issue in an amicable manner...", is this "KC" something related to me. Just wondering, if there is something regarding my editing please let me know. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Heh, don't worry Krishna, I believe Rupert was referring to discussions regarding the notability of Knight's Cross (KC) holders... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: G'day Krishna, thanks, actually I'd been hoping to play "first follower". ;-) Anyway, regarding the above comment, as Ian notes correctly, "KC" stands for Knight's Cross, and the comment refers to current discussions about notability of recipients of the award, as well as broader issues around sourcing, wording, level of detail and foreign language usage in related articles. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert and Ian Rose: Thanks for clarifying. I wish Rupert good luck in solving the issue as soon as possible. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

GAR:Joachim Helbig[edit]

Hi, since you participated in the review of the article Joachim Helbig, I'm letting you know about the community reassessment that I initiated.

The discussion is at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Congratulations on being elected Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject! I know you have the ability and skill to hold this title and serve it well. Good luck, and happy Halloween! :)

Here is your first paycheck!

Your Pal, MooperVeltresleex 18:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MooperVeltresleex (talkcontribs)

G'day, Mooper, thanks! I'll try not to spend it all at once ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay[edit]

Can you deal with the comments on the talk page? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 22 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PFC CSKA - Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia[edit]


I've noticed that the pages about PFC CSKA - Sofia to PFC CSKA Sofia are now under protection due to disruptive editing. Ironically, the edit conflict was caused by The TV Boy who has been vandalising for over a month PFC CSKA - Sofia, a page I created using exclusively sourced information. Unfortunately, he redirected PFC CSKA - Sofia to PFC CSKA Sofia shortly before asking for protection and now the protection of the page in fact protects his vandalism... Despite the almost identical names, those are two separate clubs which have nothing to do with each other. CSKA Sofia was a Bulgarian football club established in 1948 which went bankrupt a month ago, whereas CSKA - Sofia is the former Litex Lovech which changed its name to CSKA - Sofia this summer. Both teams existed simultaneously and played 46 games.......

According to all entities that have a say, such as UEFA and Bulgarian Football Union CSKA-Sofia is simply renamed Litex. I can support my statement by numerous sources ranging from the Bulgarian Commercial Register to FIFA, UEFA and BFU. As a matter of fact, there is not a single credible source supporting any link between CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia(former Litex). Also, I'd like to ask you to protect File:Cska-sofia logo.png and File:Litex renamed to CSKA - Sofia.jpg which are part of CSKA - Sofia's page and which The TV Boy is trying to delete, another example of his vandalism. This person is systematically spoiling pages related to Bulgarian football and he keeps ignoring calls by other users for discussions and their arguments.

Also, he is writing on my page calling me a "troll" and accusing me of things that could possibly compromise my account which of course are pathetic lies. I consider his behaviour absolutely unacceptable and against Wiki's ethical standards. I'd be really grateful if you take actions and restrict The TV Boy 's access to my talk page and other pages he's been vandalising. I'm ready to answer all your questions and provide all type of sources. --Ivo (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I do not pretend to know the rights and wrongs of the relevant content dispute you are engaged in; however, I protected the article because there was an active edit war of which you were clearly a part. From what I could see, you were attempting to create a content fork from what seemed like (at least on the surface) a valid redirect and then you edit warred to maintain your preferred version. The other editor also engaged in the edit war, but would no doubt, like you, argue that 3RR does/did not apply as they (and you) were reverting vandalism (from your own perspectives). Hence, I chose to protect the article and not block either of you. If you feel the topic should be split, you should try to gain consensus for doing so rather than unilaterally recreating a topic on a redirect page, particularly given that there is clearly opposition to your proposal. A request for comment is usually a good option, as maybe dispute resolution if the situation becomes entrenched. Continued use of prejorative language will not help the situation either. Regarding talk page access, those are rarely protected and it is not possible (technically) to block a specific user from posting on a specific talk page. If you have valid editor behaviour concerns, please raise them at the relevant admin board; however, please be aware that vexatious complaints are frowned upon and can result in splash back. (PS, regarding the article in question, my suggestion is that if there truly are two completely different teams with similar names (as opposed to one team with different owners etc), you need to find a proper way to disambig them, rather than a simple hyphen. For instance, it's former name in brackets or a date of establishment in brackets might be better, or something else which clearly distinguishes them). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with User:BG89 is that he is a fan of a rival club. The thing that happend is that PFC CSKA Sofia recently changed it's legal registration in the bulgarian law system in order to participate in the newly formed First Professional Football League (Bulgaria), taking the one of PFC Litex Lovech. The previous legal registration went into bankrupsy because it was abandoned and no taxes were paied. The Bulgarian football system alowes that and several other clubs have done it as well. Litex Lovech still plays in the Third level of Bulgarian football, where no registrations are required. However, fans of the rival club were unhappy with that and are trying to "mock" the club that it is "a renamed Litex, having nothing to do with CSKA", and putting the "dash" for "PFC CSKA-Sofia", wanting to futher "mock" the oponents and to "prove" that the clubs are different and that "the original CSKA is dead". In reality, there is no difference between "PFC CSKA Sofia" and "PFC CSKA-Sofia", they are the same club, using the trademark "CSKA", the emblem, the colors, the stadium, and "Sofia" being the home town it plays from. Fans of the rival club are feeling "cheated" by this, thats why BG89 does his best to "seperate" the articles, using "sources" from various untrusty sites in order to prove himself right. Yes, the legal registration have changed, but the clubs are the same - there are no other clubs with the name "CSKA Sofia".--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 11:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as changing a club's legal registration, so it can participate in a certain league. Such practices are strictly forbidden by UEFA, the supreme administrative body of European football. BFU as a member of UEFA and the supreme administrative body of the Bulgarian football follows UEFA's rules and regulations which are fully applied to the domestic championship. Therefore there wasn't a merger or an acquisition but just a name change. CSKA-Sofia is Litex - same tax number, same owners, same management etc. Only the HQ and the club colours were changed. UEFA and BFU clearly explained that CSKA-Sofia and CSKA Sofia are NOT the same club which is obvious from all their official documents, letters and interviews. If what you are saying was true, all indebted teams would just register a new company and "solve" their financial problems. What you are calling "mocking" are indisputable facts and if they somehow offend you it's definitely not my problem. There are many historical facts, represented on Wikipedia, which don't make me happy but my personal dissatisfaction doesn't make them untrue and I'm not vandalising the pages. I really wonder how could you call UEFA, BFU and the Bulgarian Commercial Register untrustworthy sources, considering they are actually the most trustworthy. They all unconditionally state/show that CSKA-Sofia is renamed Litex and isn't a successor of CSKA Sofia. A very important detail is the existence of CSKA 1948, a club which is also supported by fans of the origianl CSKA Sofia and they consider the whole CSKA-Sofia thing a great hoax, no? Even many of CSKA Sofia's legends declared that they don't support the project of Grisha Ganchev and CSKA - Sofia is a new club and not the one they played for.--Ivo (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Everyone can be a fan of whatever he wants - that is not a matter of Wikipedia importance. Sinse other clubs like Septemvri, Botev, Beroe have done it and no one have said a thing about it, than it can happen. CSKA and Litex are two different things - two different trademarks that play in different leagues. First League is a newly formed league, so this was nesceserry to happen in order the team to participate in in. Yes, Litex and CSKA have the same owners, but are two different teams. The club "CSKA 1948" is actually called "Central Sports Club of the Army 1948"", which is different from "CSKA Sofia"", whose trademark name is not an acronym. They also have different emblem, shirts, stadium, etc. The clubs Litex and CSKA are not the same ones by all means, all that is changed is the legal legal registration in the Bulgarian law system. BFU are writing it like this based on the law registration, they do that with every club - PFC Levski EAD, PFC Neftohimic 1968 EAD, etc, they give the information to UEFA. The lawsystem and the various registrations there are a complicated matter, but the registration itself is also briefly described in the article. The clubs are one and the same in all means, with everything they represent. The fact that you are unhappy about it is not a matter of Wikipedia. There are fans that support different opinions, but the facts are like this. Faking the facts and the sources doesn't make your opinion the right one, and the agressive way that you wish to split the articles prove your intentions.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I don't know the ins and outs of the content dispute, so you are best solving it through a neutrally worded request for comment or dispute resolution. Continuing to edit war won't solve anything, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia won't give Corey Fogelmanis a Wikipedia page like thing?[edit]

Just give a Wikipedia page for Corey Fogelmanis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riarkle222 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Riarkle222: G'day, if you believe that the subject meets the site's notability requirements, but you do not feel able to write the article yourself, potentially you could request the article here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia needs you[edit]

G'day Rupert, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: G'day, just to clarify I went through RFA in May: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert. It wasn't actually a very good week for it in the end, and I wasn't able to devote as much time to responses as I would have liked due to a couple of real life emergencies at work. I found the process...interesting, shall we say. I can certainly see why many people don't put themselves through it, and why our admin numbers are declining. Anyway, since then I've done a bit of admin work, but I am just trying to ease myself into things (closing some AfDs, clearing some of the speedy deletion requests, processing some page protections, doing some revdel and histmerges, etc). I have certainly found my own content creation has suffered though. I have made a couple of blues (errors), so if there is anything you feel I should be doing better, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I should have realised that you are an admin already - I even voted on your RfA! No reflections on your current work at all - it was just part of my campaign to find new admin candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries at all, certainly a worthy campaign. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Africa Destubathon[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work so far! Can you do me a favour though and always add every entry you do to the main list here as well as the entries page, regardless if yet approved or not as that's the master list of all articles being done. It's just veyr time consuming for me to be judging the articles, trying to contribute myself and chasing up what people have done and filling it out for people each time. So if you can take care of that this would be a great help, there's some part filled out ones underneath so you just need to add country, article name and then you username. I added the ones you did earlier but if you could do it from now on.. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries, will do. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Isurava[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Isurava 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) 05:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have snipped 2 sketch maps from McCarthy (CH 6) that I would like to add to improve clarity but I am not certain about the creative commons copyright code to use out of the seven options? Help pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not actually certain that they would be out of copyright. If they were published in 1959, they wouldn't be PD in the US. Anotherclown is working on a map now, so I would like to leave some room in the article for that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
They say they are free for non commercial on the pdf from the awm so they can't be used? On another note, it is very good to see this work on the campaign. The existing main article seems to gloss over the Australian advance. On a related issue, I noted that the Maroubra Force article suggests it existed through to Gona-Buna. My reading of Brune (a bastard of a Place) suggests this ceased to exist when the 39th an 53rd were withdrawn, leaving the 21st bde as the formation? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day, unfortunately "free for non commercial use" isn't compatible with the site's license, which requires items to be free for all use. It is actually a bit more complex than that, as there is also the intersection of Australian and US copyright law to examine (I did a year of law and still can't fully understand it), but that is probably the short version. Re: Maroubra Force, I'm not really sure, to be honest. The last mention I can find in Brune is on p. 243 (around 12 September 1942 when the 25th Brigade began moving up to Ioribaiwa). If we could find a ref that provides a definitive disbandment date, that would be a great addition to the article. Porter's biography isn't clear on this either: [1]. Unfortunately, the AWM doesn't seem to list Maroubra Force in its holdings for war diaries: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Isurava[edit]

The article Battle of Isurava you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Battle of Isurava 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) 22:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Operation Dragoon[edit]

Hello, Australian Rupert -- I just finished copy-editing Operation Dragoon, in response to a request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. The requester, Dead Mary, admits she is not a native speaker of English (making me wonder, though, about some really well written, somewhat sophisticated, sentences; perhaps a paraphrase too close to the source?). All things considered, the article was fairly well written. I just made a lot of small edits. However, though I do find military history interesting, it is not a subject I know much about. I was wondering, if you had time, if you would mind reading through the article and checking my edits and making sure I did not introduce any errors. I was puzzled by two words:

1) Twice, I changed "paratroops" to "paratroopers". I did not recall ever hearing the word "paratroops". Is that a word? If it is, perhaps you could determine in each instance which is the better word for the context.

2) I saw the word "strongpoint(s)" several times, but I didn't change it. Is that a military term? It shows up in my edit window with a red squiggly line under it, indicating that the computer does not recognize it as a correctly spelled word. Would "strong point(s)" be more accurate?

I also wonder whether regions like "Southern France" should have "southern" capitalized.

Finally, there is one ungrammatical sentence about two-thirds to three-quarters of the way through the article. I didn't fix it because I couldn't figure out what was meant, but now I can't find it. Maybe I'll read through the article once more when my eyes are rested, but right now I've had enough of the article. Maybe you or Dead Mary will be able to find it.  – Corinne (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Corrine, thanks for your efforts; sure I will take a look. Reference your first point, paratroops is a collective noun for paratroopers, I believe. Reference your second point, I'd say "strong point", but that could be an English variation issue, I'm not sure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for going over the article and catching some typos and other errors. I changed American spelling in words such as "defense" to British English spelling because I saw a tag at the top of the edit window saying to use day-month-year dates. Since that's British date format, I thought Dead Mary wanted the article to be in British English. But since that tag has been there since November 2012, maybe Dead Mary did not see it. It doesn't matter to me which variant of English is used, but don't you think the date format and the spelling variant should match (whichever English variant is decided upon)?  – Corinne (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding "strongpoint", I just did a search and found an article with the title Strongpoint. So, it is a word in English, and a valid military term.  – Corinne (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi again and Hi AustralianRupert. I have seen the discussion and just want to add my comments for explanation. I can assure you that I don't close paraphrase or make a copy violations, I use multiple sources and then write my own text. Over the course of the years my English skill increased considerably I guess. I have read many article and books about milhist and I guess thats why I can use standard phrases describing military actions quite okayish. If you look at the 2011 version when I wrote the first version of the article here as well as another 2012 expansion here you will see that it was much worse. There is also a bit material which has been added by other editors between 2012 and 2016, but I rewrote most of that. The different English style is actually one of those things why I asked for a CE. I dont have enough deep theoretical knowledge about the differences and I guess I am probably using them very inconsistent. I usually use what feels right which is apparently a mix of British and American. Personally I dont care which English style it is (I was not the person who added the template/note) but of course everything should be consistent at the end. Paratroops is imo just a typo and was meant to be paratroopers. Regarding strong-point I dont know how I is correctly spelled actually so I went with that version. :D But all of that seems to have been cleared up by now, so thanks to both of you. Dead Mary (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day, regarding dates and spelling, I guess my answer is that it's complicated. The US military uses dmy date format, so a lot of US-centric articles, even though they use US spelling will use the DMY date format. Re this article, I believe that it should use US spelling as the topic is mainly a US one, albeit with the involvement of other Allies, of course. Re "paratroops" it is definitely a word: it is the collective noun of paratroopers (according to the Macquarie Dictionary), that said, I wouldn't use it myself. Beyond that, I think Mary has done a fantastic job on the article. Thank you both for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Bert Kienzle[edit]

Would appreciate any comment you might make on my rough draft re notability - see here[3] (in my sandbox). I have been working primarily (at this stage) from his biography but he is refered to in MC Carthy, Fitsimmons, James, Brune, Paull(?) Allan Powell, Third Force (p221 of bio)and apparently a contemporaneos Sydney news paper as "The man who blazed the Kokoda Trail" (bio p210) - so there are certainly multiple reliable sources. Thanks in advance Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, certainly an interesting bloke...hard to say if the article would pass muster if someone sent it to articles for deletion, though. I agree that there are certainly quite a few sources that mention him, but I think the thing to consider is would the majority of these mentions be described as "passing mentions" or as "significant coverage". Short answer, IMO, is I actually don't know how this one would fare. I have seen a trend of late within Wikipedia which would lead me to believe that it potentially wouldn't survive a deletion debate if it was nominated. The fact that his biography appears to have been written by a family member would probably count against the sources in such a debate, even though it appears to have been published by a reputable publishing house. Additionally, I think there would potentially be an argument that there are too many "intricate details"; I'm not sure I agree, but then I am intimately interested in these details. Would the average person, though? Potentially not... so they would potentially want a much more succinct biographical article, which, when you remove the detail that most of the references include, essentially boils down to a relatively nondescript bio. I think. That said, I certainly don't want to discourage you. I can see that you've clearly put a lot of work into it. Sorry, I'm not sure if any of this was helpful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I will persevere I think. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Added it to the main space - Herbert Thomas Kienzle. Sure it needs a second good set of eyes. Would appreciate it. Waiting on a couple of old references to come on loan (Paull & Third Force and will add what I find). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Would this be up to at least b class? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: G'day, nice work, it looks very good to me. Just a couple of minor points: did he have any children and was he survived by his either his wife or any children? Also, finally, when you mention Molongolo, is this the place that is now a suburb of Canberra, or somewhere else? The link is current a dab, so it doesn't quite clarify it for the reader. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will get back on these things. It may take a bit of time. It will be the suburb of Canberra. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have had a go of the children / survived by or were you thinking of more info, such as when born? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. NgYShung huh? 15:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Veteran Records[edit]

Good morning, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and am unclear as to how to cite a particular source, or if I can even use it at all. I recently requested veterans' records from the National Personnel Records Center, a part of the US National Archives, and I believe I can use some of this information to better illustrate these individuals' military service on their Wikipedia pages. The main issue is that I have no idea as to how to cite these records. I asked on the Help Desk, but recieved conflicting answers. As Lead Coordinator for the Military History Wikiproject, I trust you'd be better equipped to answer my question. Jionunez (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jionunez: G'day, it is possible to cite such records and you could potentially use a template such as {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} (if they are online) or {{Cite journal}} to help format them. However, you need to be careful in citing such works as they are primary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, although some primary sources are acceptable so long as you do not apply your own analysis or interpretation to their contents. As such, you must simply use them to provide bare facts such as dates of promotion, places of enlistment etc. If you wish to analyse the contents, the analysis must be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Additionally, primary sources shouldn't be used to establish notability. Out of curiosity, which articles are you wishing to work on? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Thank you, I am aware of Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, and do not intend to interpret the information. I primarily intended to work on the Wikipedia articles for Eric Garcetti, Geoff Ramsey, and other similar individuals who are veterans or reservists, but notable for work outside of military service. I noticed that the military service of many such individuals was often overlooked on their pages and wished to correct that. So far I have only received the service records of Geoff Ramsey. I am still waiting for that of Eric Garcetti, and I intend to send more requests shortly. Jionunez (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of socking[edit]

Hello, Rupert!

Another user(The TV Boy) has accused me of socking many times and is trying to use his false accusations against me in an ongoing discussion about CSKA and CSKA-Sofia. I'm contacting you because you kind of know about the dispute but don't worry, I'm not asking you to take my side at all. Actually, I took your advise about the dispute resolution tools but this is where the problem started. Ever since I informed the other person that a third opinion request and even further steps might by necessary, he started doing his utmost to eliminate me from the discussion. So far, he reported me twice on the admin noticeboard asking for 1 month block and at least two times unofficially on the talk pages of a page reviewer(Cameron11598) and another user taking part in the discussion(Laveol). Absolutely no actions were taken against me and his block request was denied. The page reviewer explained him that in his opinion I'm not vandalising anything and there is only a content dispute which is exactly what the other user told him and even warned him that he is the one with questionable edits. After he failed to get any support for temporary sanctions against me, suspending my account permanently became his last resort. On virtually every talk page he repeats that I'm sock puppeting and I'm behind any anonymous edit supporting my position. That forced me to ask for a semi-protection of a page which was enforced but that didn't make him stop. I asked him to reconsider his attitude towards me and apologise but he refused and continued to accuse me without any evidence. This has become so frustrating to me that I'm no longer able to focus on the discussions because I'm forced to answer his mechanically repeated groundless accusations all the time. In order to clear my name, I'm forced to ask for an investigation on my own account. Unfortunately, I couldn't find such option and therefore I'd like to ask you to check my account. I realise that this is a personal request but it's directly related to several discussions and my most basic user rights, blatantly violated by one person. Everything I write is removed by Tv Boy not because it's not true or there is no source but because "I'm socking and its just my personal opinion". I'll be happy to provide any type of information if you accept to help me. --Ivo (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

BG89, I told you several times on several talk pages why your actions are not correct, why the information you are trying to put on several actions is false, but you just kept on and on refusing to take anything I give you as a confirmation, as a source, as evidence, you just kept twisting everything up, saying black to the white, simply inverting the things I gave you in order to prove yourself right. I told you milions of times why Liex and CSKA are not the same thing, why the page is called PFC CSKA Sofia, why there is no such name as "CSKA-Sofia", you just kept pushing even more aggressively. Yes, I called you a "fan troll" of a rival club just because this is what you are doing - refusing to take anything else and aggressively entering edit war regarding the rival team. I have managed to sort out the dispute with discussions, as I previously did with users Laveol and Chris Calvin, who had similar opinions as yours, I presented my opinions ad we reached a consensus of the page. Then you poped in, moving and changing gradually everything in a blink of an eye, I asked you to stop and discuss, you just kept reverting my edits, moving from article to article, paying no attention to what I give you, and saying in one of the discussion that you are a fan of PFC Levski Sofia, which is a rival club. Refusing to take anything in as arguments at all is fan trolling. If you stopped moving and entering the controversial info and looked at the consensus we previously established everything would have been fine, but no. Then dynamic IP's started following your every move and reverting my edits the same way as you and the same time as you. There is no way this is a coincidence, it just matches up. The thing that you may not have logged in under your phone and edited under these IP's doesn't mean that this wasn't you at 100%. It matches up exactly, so either it is you, or someone is doing you a bad favour. After that I had to report you, because you refused to take in anything I gave you, and continued to revert my edits to your version despite the talk page discussion. Yes, no actions against you were taken because no investigation was taken by third parties to identify what exactly is up with the matter, and unfortunately unlike the Bulgarian Wikipedia, there is no Bulgarian administrator here who is up-to-date with the topic and knows what is going on. I once again ask you to stop and reconsider your actions. They do not lead to anything good.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 11:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
What you are supposed to say here are the names of my puppets but for some reason I don't see any of them. Everything you wrote is not true and even if it was it's for other talk pages. You are just trying to change the focus of my post. The sources you were offering me were self-citing and unofficial fan projects. My sources are UEFA, BFU, Bulgarian Commercial Register and so on. According to all of them, CSKA went bankrupt and 2 new clubs with similar names were established. All key members of BFU including Emil Kostadinov, a club legend of PFC CSKA Sofia, explained that CSKA no longer exists and CSKA-Sofia is renamed Litex. Also, it's absolutely not true that Laveol, Chris Calvin or anybody else accepted you position. They just quit the discussion because you left no room for consensus and you want me to do the same. I'm really curious to learn who are my puppets. Would you please let me know their names? --Ivo (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day, frankly I also have concerns about dynamic IPs following your edits, such as here: PFC CSKA - Sofia and PFC CSKA-Sofia. That said, I really believe that the only way to resolve the issue is for a formal request of mediation, which can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
BG89, the name of the sockpuppets can be seen in the history of the redirects, they are Vivacom phone network dynamic IP's. The IP that again started to revert in PFC CSKA Sofia was baring an "Spectrum Net" (Mobiltel EAD Varna local cable network) identification, thought I think this one specifically was not you, because IP's with similar ranges have previously harnessed me in bgwiki and I think this is the same vandal as them. For the Vivacom ones however the pattern is extremely similar. I don't think I understand what you mean by fan projects as I was giving links to the official site of the club. I already explained to you why your interpretations of the information from these institutions and the Commercial Register is not correct and what it really means. The one legal entity went bankrupted, it was relapsed by another using legal shifts. Never a Bulgarian club has been limited it's existanse only to one legal registration, including many others as PFC Septemvri Sofia, PFC Botev Plovdiv, and even PFC Levski Sofia in 1999. You just try your very best to pull stuff to try to "make the club dead" because you are a fan of a rival one. These key members only have stated their personal opinion of the subject, and never the BFU has made an official position about that, it only regulates and registers. I told you that CSKA still exists in First League and Litex still exists in Third League, you keep avoiding that matter. Do not invert the topics please, with both Laveol and Chris I have reached a reasonable consensus, except with you. Rupert already told you where to see the IP addresses, they are dynamic and are many with similar first patterns, i.e. 212... something, but they are all from a Vivacom dynamic IP mobile phone network.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rupert I'm sorry for the late reply. We had elections here in Bulgaria and as a member of election section commission I was really busy during the weekend. Also, there was another reason for my delay which you will find out after you read this. My concerns are even bigger than yours because the edits from anonymous IPs don't help me at all. They actually undermine my position and miraculously started when TV Boy began doing his utmost to remove me from the discussion and get me blocked. I definitely think this is a very suspicious coincidence and in overall he is the one benefiting from their edits. It's really strange that after so many accusations he is unwilling to report my alleged puppets, especially after he was asked to. I registered my account in 2008 but had just a few edits until 22 June 2016 when I noticed that there were no pages about the current and the last season of my favourite football club. Shortly after I created them I noticed the discussion about CSKA and CSKA-Sofia which I joined because I'm not indifferent and the dispute affects 2016-17 PFC Levski Sofia season or more precisely which is the club Levski played last month. Since the first time I read a comment by TV Boy I felt there is something wrong with this guy. Actually, many Wikipedians share my opinion. Not only users of the English Wiki but of the Bulgarian as well. In order to find out what is going on I conducted a little investigation about the Vivacom IPs. Everything started when I left a short message to one of the participants in the edit wars who is one of my alleged puppets but what followed really amazed me. I got answers by TV Boy and ... another anonymous Vivacom IP which was part of the edit wars. I bet you never expected too see what you are about to see. Ironically, the real sockmaster and the person behind all the Vivacom IPs is TV Boy himself. Initially, he used them to edit anonymously and then he tried to use them against me. TV Boy was so desperate to get rid of me because I started calling for a third opinion and his only chance was to get me banned. It was very time-consuming and the post won't be short but it's worth it. Here is the incomplete list of the anonymous Vivacom puppets and how they are related to TV Boy:
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 24 December 2014
Total number of edits: 20-30
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2
Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: BNT World on 3 September 2016. TV Boy has edited the article over 10 times.
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 25 September 2015
Total number of edits: ~10
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 7 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2
Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, Eternal derby of Bulgarian football
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: FC Dunav Ruse on 1 August 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 18 July 2016
Total number of edits: ~10
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2
Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, FC CSKA 1948 Sofia, PFC CSKA - Sofia
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 21 August 2016 added info about the "current squad" of CSKA which IMO is the squad of another club. TV Boy has edited the page many times. On 31 October suddenly changed his mind and decided to "support" me.
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 18 July 2016
Total number of edits: 4
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste:
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste:
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 0
Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 22 August added info about the "current squad".
Location: Pleven, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 5 April 2004
Total number of edits: 100+
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited:
This IP was added to the list only because it's another anonymous Vivacom IP and supports my position but it's located in Pleven I don't think it's related to the other anonymous IPs which can be traced to Sofia.
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 23 February 2013
Total number of edits: 20+
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: PFC CSKA - Sofia
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: TV Boy used to edit the articles about TV channels both from his account and anonymously from the Vivacom IPs.

Nova television (Bulgaria)

12:34, 24 July 2015‎ (-8)‎
21:11, 23 July 2015‎ (+3)‎
20:28, 23 July 2015‎ (-3)‎
16:08, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (+34)‎
19:57, 22 July 2015‎ (talk)(-34)‎


20:33, 23 July 2015‎ (-16)‎
16:07, 23 July 2015‎ (+5)‎
22 July 2015‎ (-5)‎
11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎

Kino Nova

12:40, 24 July 2015‎ (-1)‎
21:13, 23 July 2015‎ (+3)‎
20:38, 23 July 2015‎ (-3)
20:37, 23 July 2015‎ (0)‎
17:48, 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎


12:40, 24 July 2015‎ (-1)‎
21:13, 23 July 2015‎ (+3)
20:38, 23 July 2015‎ (-3)‎
20:37, 23 July 2015‎ (0)‎
17:48, 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎
13:11 7 April Naskox (+124)‎
14:39, 30 March 2015‎ The TV Boy (+49)‎

Diema Family

21:14, 23 July 2015‎ (-20)‎
20:48, 23 July 2015‎ (+20)‎
11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+27)‎
4 June 2015‎ (+12)‎
2 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-7,193)‎

Nova Sport (Bulgaria)

12:42, 24 July 2015‎ (0)‎
24 July 2015‎ (0)‎
23 July 2015‎ (-4)‎
20:53, 23 July 2015‎ (+4)‎
16:01, 23 July 2015‎ (-6)‎
20:29, 21 July 2015‎ (+6)‎
11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-61)‎

BTV (Bulgaria)

22:19, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (+26)‎
21:17, 23 July 2015‎ (-5)‎
21:06, 23 July 2015‎
16:14, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (-70)

BTV Comedy

22:19, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-32)‎
23 July 2015‎ (-1)‎
23 July 2015‎ (+1)‎

BTV Cinema

22:20, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-22)‎
21:22, 23 July 2015‎ (+6)‎
21:16, 23 July 2015‎ (-1)‎
21:14, 23 July 2015‎ (talk)‎(-5)

BTV Action

22:21, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (+34)
21:32, 23 July 2015‎ (+5)‎
21:27, 23 July 2015‎ (0)‎
21:26, 23 July 2015‎ (-5)‎
16:16, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (-79)‎

BTV Lady

22:22, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-57)‎
21:34, 23 July 2015‎ (-21)‎
21:32, 23 July 2015‎ (+1)
21:31, 23 July 2015‎ (+20)
15:12, 2 June 2015‎ The TV Boy(-5,890)

RING (Bulgaria)

21:35, 23 July 2015‎ (+2)‎
21:51, 6 July 2015‎ (-32)
15:28, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-11)‎
8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+572)‎
15:24, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-461)‎
15:22, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-153)‎
14:49, 2 May 2015‎ The TV Boy (+38)‎
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 29 December 2013
Total number of edits: ~10
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: PFC CSKA - Sofia
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Beroe Stara Zagora: The edits are 3 years apart though.
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 16 January 2015
Total number of edits: ~10
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 5
Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited:
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 30 July 2015
Total number of edits: ~20
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited:
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 29 December 2013
Total number of edits: ~20
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Lokomotiv Plovdiv was edited by 3 times on 12 September 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016.
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 27 December 2013
Total number of edits: ~20
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png
Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Beroe Stara Zagora

11:56, 14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (-36)‎
11:48, 14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+91)‎
03:16, 14 July 2016‎ Vítor (-4)
16:15, 13 July 2016‎ (+71)‎
17:56, 12 July 2016‎ (-71)‎
23:03, 11 July 2016‎ Dfotev (-192)‎
01:48, 11 July 2016‎ (-35)‎
20:57, 9 July 2016‎ (0)‎
20:57, 9 July 2016‎
20:56, 9 July 2016‎ (+53)‎
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
internet provider: Vivacom
First edit ever: 8 November 2015
Total number of edits: ~10
First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016
Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1
Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png
Other interests: Football and history Second Professional Football League (Bulgaria)

18:56, 2 August 2016‎ The TV Boy (+103)‎
19:27, 27 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (-5)‎
19:23, 27 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+230)
12:17, 26 July 2016‎ (-230)‎
18:39, 25 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+1)‎
18:36, 25 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+23)‎

Second Professional Football League (Bulgaria)

10:28, 30 July 2016‎ (-8)‎
14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+66)‎

--Ivo (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

BG89, I am trully amased by your oratorical abilities. Trully no one better can you can take fact A and turne it the other way around in less than a sentence, you trully are suitable for a lawyer. Anyway I am taking this "Since the first time I read a comment by TV Boy I felt there is something wrong with this guy. Actually, many Wikipedians share my opinion." - as a personal offense and you will be reporting you again if you make a comment like this. Your statements that "many people else"share your opinion are shared only by bg:User:GOOR, with whom I had a similar argument because he refused to take in anything I told him about the topic. Yes, you are not indifferent to the topic and a supporter of Levski, which perfectly explanes why you want to declare "the rival club dead" at all costs, and thats why you are attacking me like this. First of all, you understand that hundereds, if not milions of users use this IP's, right? Because they serve the enthier mobile network of Vivacom. This is why I replied to your message there. I already said that you are best at twisting everything to prove yourself right, so maybe you are a lawyer after all. Trying to "investigate" such IP's more that 1 month in the back is irrelevant because they are used by so many people. I am interested in TV articles and I started editing football ones this year because I got more into the topic. Your actions at the moment are exactly like I told you - the theif says "catch the theif!". FYI, I never used Vivacom, ever. I am using Mtel for my mobile and Blizoo for my fixed connections. As Rupert said - only a Wikipedia:CheckUser can determine if you ever logged in under a Vivacom IP. Twisting everything the way around and trying to fabricate things to use my accusations against me to prove yourself right and clear won't make you "the winner", in fact this only grows more arugments in my case wich I can use against you if you continue with this behaviour. My accusations of you being the one behind the Vivacom IP's is that simply they follow you everyware where you edit-war in me, pop in exactly at the same time as you on that topic, and respond just like you, this is enoght for WP:DUCK. The other edits you are accusing me of, older than 1 month are simply another person's edits, simply because this range is used by thousands of users.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 04:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I appreciate you taking the time to sift through that, but I am not a Wikipedia:CheckUser and I do not pretend to understand the nature of the dispute you are in. My only concern is to prevent ongoing disruption at the articles and promote a consensus building approach. My advice to both of you is to try to resolve your dispute amicably. Part of that may involve both of you taking a short break from the current articles in dispute and trying to focus on something else. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby, not stressful. Mediated discussion is probably also available to you, or WP:RFC (in fact, a carefully worded RFC might be the best option). Other options potentially also include starting a Sockpuppet investigation where you could both present your evidence. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. this is my annonymous moble phone IP right there. You can check it in if you want. I will appresiate if you show yours and not just try to type nonsense to prove yourself right. The TV Boy. (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I'll say it backwards ... and in bold ... WOW! This whole thing - both here and on numerous other pages around Wikipedia - has to be one of the best, most engaging thrillers I've encountered in years. Have you sold the film rights yet??? The constant twists and turns; both sides being partly in the right and partly in the wrong; both accusing one another of the same dastardly crimes; both sides appealing to all and sundry for help, but no help being forthcoming; both sides misunderstanding and misinterpreting events and policies; one user claiming the other is using sock puppets, only for the other to come back showing that the accuser was using sock puppets to support their opponent, thus making their opponent appear to be using sock puppets. Brilliant! Now I am waiting for the big twist in the finale; which is surely that this is all the work of one person who has split personalities??? At any rate, the whole twisted saga is a work of genius.... FillsHerTease (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced editorial zeal[edit]

Hi AustralianRupert - as current Lead Coordinator of the WikiProject Military history, are you able to advise who I can discuss an issue I have with one of the group's editors who is systematically going through and deleting whole sections of biography information that myself and a number of researchers have put up in the past few years. It has already p*ssed a couple of the researchers off enough into their leaving and I am getting to that level as well. Direct discussion with him has been fruitless as he just quotes chapter and verse of Wikipedia regulations, yet his ignorance and lack of reading on the subjects is fairly apparent. However, as his user-page shows him to be an multi-awarded editor by quantity and I have just a simple narrow niche of contribution, I feel powerless to put forward a case. Is there a process within this Group I can use, where senior writers can offline verify or constructively discuss my errors in editing and offer suggestions to move forward. Thanks, in advance, for any help Philby NZ (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution offers a variety of methods that can be used in such situations. Essentially it boils down to consensus, so my advice is to try to establish consensus about the changes being made. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad[edit]

Hi there, AustralianRupert. It seems our IP-hopping friend, from Telefonica O2 UK in London, with a bee in their bonnet over JC, is back again. I wonder could you consider some kind of warning/ action/ remedy here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to remind "martinevans123" that WP:NPOV is a core and non-negotiable policy of the encyclopaedia, of which describing an author as a "master prose stylist" is an obvious violation. Should they insist on repeatedly violating core policies, it would be appropriate to block them. (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift action, AustralianRupert. I'm sorry that you may now have to suffer the backlash. As per WP:BRD, the apporpriate acton for the editor reverting against consensus would be to open a discussion thread at the article Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Whatever consensus you think you are part of, it cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. NPOV is not negotiable. Your efforts to violate it, which extend to lying and filing spurious reports, are vandalism and highly disruptive. (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you have specific concerns, please take them to the article talk page as you have been invited to do, or the relevant admin noticeboard; otherwise, essentially what this boils down to is edit warring. I'm pretty sure that a reasonable argument will get a reasonable response, but continued disruption is unacceptable, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the edit that "martinevans123" is making? Do you understand the core policy of NPOV? (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to change the consensus that has been established at the article, there is a constructive way to do that, which is to discuss it in a calm and rational way on the article's talk page. Edit warring is not the way to do it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota[edit]

Hello AustralianRupert,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AustralianRupert. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
G'day Bowen, thank you for the offer but I will decline at this stage. Best of luck with your research, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hull (watercraft)[edit]

Hello, Australian Rupert -- Do you know anything about ships? I was just looking at this edit to Hull (watercraft), and I wonder whether a baseline on a ship is imaginary (as in Waterline, which appears at the end of the list of terms), or actually painted on the side of the ship. Is the change from "imaginary" to "level" an improvement? Either way, are you happy with the preposition at the end of the phrase? Or would you prefer no preposition at the end:

  • ...line from which measurements are made


  • ...line used to make measurements

 – Corinne (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day Corinne, sorry I'm mainly a land-based mammal. @Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66: might be able to help, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that's a bit more technical than I'm used to dealing with, but it seems plausible. I know that a baseline isn't painted on a ship's hull, but it does appear to be used to base other measurements off of, judging by the diagram in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for reviewing the article, I filled in the last citation needed and bumped it up per your comment, do you think it's ready for either GA or A class review? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

History of Thailand (1932–1973)[edit]

Hi. You deleted the redirect under G6 to make way for a move, but the move hasn't been performed. I guess History of Thailand (1932–73) is the page that was supposed to be renamed, but what is the reason for the move?) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I just found out about the RfC affecting the MOS:DATERANGE. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Red wikilinks[edit]

Hello. This edit to the Battle of Prokhorovka breaks the wikilinks. While I understand it was done as per MOS, but don't you think it's sort of counterproductive when it makes functional wikilinks to existing articles turn red. Do you have a suggestion for a way around this? EyeTruth (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. You did find a way around it. Thanks. EyeTruth (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Edward William Purvis[edit]

Hello, long time no talk. I was wondering would this article I am working on currently count as a Military History article? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message[edit]

Hello there, thank you for your message, I just joined Wikipedia to correct a little mistake on the Gewehr 98 page. I'm quite new to this, so I'm not entirely sure how this all works. I didn't change the page itself, but added a reply to the Talk page, complete with a reference to a book which corrects the mistake.

In the same manner, I quoted from a book on the talk page for the Battle of Dogali.

My question is, how do I go from here?

Thank you very much for your time, I look forward to contributing to improving the pages on military history. Thom430 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thom430: G'day, so long as you have a reliable source for your reference, there shouldn't be any major concerns with making your change. My advice is to read a couple of advice pages, such as this and this, and then have a go. If you make an error, someone will no doubt correct it, and you can see where you went wrong. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi AustralianRupert.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AustralianRupert. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii and the American Civil War[edit]

Hello, I want to bring Hawaii and the American Civil War up to scale. Do you have any suggestions for further expansion? I'm not as familiar with writing non-biographical information. I mainly need help with article structuring and sectioning and pointing out the nonexistent sections or information that I would still need to add about the subject. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: G'day, unfortunately it's not really an area of expertise for me. Generically, though, I'd suggest expanding the lead to at least two paragraphs, and looking to see if you can add some more of a narrative, potentially about casualties and maybe also economics and other aspects of involvement in the war. Also, it seems that all of the examples of combatants are Union servicemen currently; if possible, I'd suggest weaving in some of the details about those who served the Confederacy also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War[edit]

Thanks for assessing, I have more to add and wonder if you have any suggestions as I've not done an article like this before. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: G'day, sorry, I forgot about this query. The only real suggestion I have would be potentially to try to add some images of the authors themselves, if available. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That's all right, you've been very busy this weekend. I'll look for some pics. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

potentially ongoing help or advice[edit]

Hello AustralianRupert. I queried User:Ian Rose via email for the names of a few admins who are consistently fair but able to make nuanced decisions etc. He gave me your name on a short list. I feel I may be in for some ongoing but hopefully low-grade conflict etc., and I admit I am not always the best person to handle such things, for a few reasons. For one, I am not an admin. For another, although I can be very helpful and very diplomatic for reasonable periods of time, I do have a well-established history of falling into general "shut the fuck up" behavior (never bad enough to warrant a block in 10 years, but still not particularly constructive either).

I dunno, this may or may not be an ongoing thing.

Alas, I am working on a contentious topic. Since February, with periods of relatively more or relatively less activity, I've been working on a WP:TNT rewrite of Bengal famine of 1943 (sandbox version here). if you include the 200 or so edits I've made to the mainspace version before I decided to go to my sandbox, my edit count on this topic alone certainly exceeds 2,500 and will certainly go considerably higher.. My goal (cross your fingers, knock on wood) is to drag it through FAC in a few months.

As I said, it's contentious. I may have problems through time. In fact, in just the past 2 weeks or so I have reverted one established editor and one IP. The latter just reverted me back, so I went to the article's talk page and added a TL;DR response.

I... have never been to ANI as far as I can recall (though I may have complained there once or twice; don't recall). I stay away from it as a rule and by design. I don't even know who is or isn't an admin. So if you have any advice or aid or whatever to offer, I would be grateful. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: G'day, from what I can tell, I don't think ANI is necessary for what is going on at Bengal famine of 1943 just yet, although if edit warring persists, some sort of protection might be considered. Posting your concerns on the talk page seems like a good idea in the long term to try to establish consensus on the article. Linking to your draft on the current article talk page, and requesting opinions might also be a good way to establish consensus about your approach moving forward. I will watchlist the article for a bit to see how you get on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, which is beneficial. The two key points, I think, are 1) I just wanna have someone I can turn to instead of (and as an alternative to) going on one of my patented full-on "by the way, you're a drooling idiot" rants, and 2) I am dangling in genuine indecision between wanting to go full open & public (as you suggest w. "Linking to your draft on the current article talk page, and requesting opinions" and living in great fear and great dread of t-r-o-l-l-s ( or far worse, well-meaning but POV-saturated POV warriors of eminent POV-ness) (witness my emailing Ian for advice rather than posting on his talk). In short, I don't want trolls to screw up this rewrite, and I don't want my response to trolls to screw it up either. That's all I guess. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Asking Questions regarding Specific Article on Project-Wide Discussion Page[edit]

Hi AustralianRupert, I'm a recent veteran of the U.S. Air Force, and I have taken an interest in becoming a regular contributor to the Military History WikiProject. In particular, I'd like to start by editing/updating the Wikipedia page for the United States Air Force Wings of Blue Parachute Team. I would love the input of the Mil His WikiProject community before I dive in. Should I start the conversation on the WikiProject's discussion page by starting a new section on that page? It seems to me that different WikiProjects have different rules of etiquette, and I'm not sure if I should be blasting out my questions on this very specific article to the entire mil his community. I've taken a look at the Asking for Help page and have resorted to reaching out to a project coordinator for help. I would appreciate any insights. Thanks! Alexhapki (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Alexhapki: G'day, Alex. Welcome to Wikipedia. One of the key tenets of the encyclopedia is "be bold"; however, there are times when it is best to be a bit cautious in proceeding. This is usually if a change to an article might be considered controversial. That said, if you follow some of the site's key policies, such as including references to reliable sources for all information that you add and maintaining a neutral point of view, your edits are most likely going to be acceptable. If you wish to work on the 98th FTS, I would encourage you to do so after you have read a couple of key policies (specifically those on verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources). I will watchlist the article and try to help guide you as best I can. The topic isn't something I know anything about (I'm a serving soldier, but strictly ground based). I believe that this sort of topic, though, is something that Lineagegeek (talk · contribs) may be able to help with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Alexhapki: I'd be happy to help out. A brief look at the article indicates it could use a bit of cleanup at the least, so there should be ample opportunity to learn how to use templates, format and other grunt stuff while improving the article. If you have questions particular to the team (or the 98th Squadron), the article's talk page might be the best place to ask. It's on my watch list, so I'll see questions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Lineagegeek: Thanks for the quick replies and offers of assistance, AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) and Lineagegeek. I will review your recommended resources and then post my thoughts on improvements on the article's talk page. Appreciate the guidance! Cheers, Alexhapki (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
For taking the bull by the horns at 2nd Canadian Infantry Division (I mean 2nd Canadian Division during World War II‎...!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion on List of Field Marshals (India)[edit]

Actually the article title is Field marshal (India) which has been moved to the present title recently, and has been assessed as list. I want to look over the article and suggest the apt assessment for the article. Even though it is a bit of list, it has been written in prose style, so what should the class be? It is currently a GAN, if it is to be list, I'll remove the nomination and take to the assessment of lists, perhaps ACR and FAC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

History merge[edit]

Can you possibly merge the history of User:Kuauli/William Hoapili Kaauwai and William Hoapili Kaauwai? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


My nomination is made with the greatest and most sincere respect and admiration. Good leaders are hard to find - as hard as good Qies. I might easily have despaired with Buna-Gona but for your support and help. While I am proud of my achievement (and nobody knows my name :) ), it is through your help and encouragement that I achieved what I have. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I've certainly enjoyed working with you and I hope that you will continue your work in other areas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)