This is an archive of past discussions about User:AustralianRupert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
A relatively small article about a siege during a decisive period in Iranian and Caucasian history. In its current state, do you think it would pass a GA nomination, if I added a pic to it? I never nominated a proper "military history" article before, hence I thought I should ask an actual MH veteran. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: G'day, Louis, nice work. I'd say it would have a good chance, but I'm not sure to be honest. Sending it to peer review first might be a good idea. I'd suggest a couple of improvements before GAN, if possible:
The addition of an image would be fantastic
I think the lead could be expanded by a sentence or two
The Siege section, if possible, should explain how the siege progressed. Currently, it kind of just says the siege happened, but not how it took place. (This could include some of the strength details, and the other commanders, that are currently only included in the infobox).
Finally, I suggest working the Axeworthy quote into the article. Currently it is included in the Sources, but actually doesn't appear to be used in the body of the narrative.
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, for an excellent 23 FAC, ACR, GAN and PR reviews for the period April to June 2018, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks for your significant contribution to the Milhist article reviewing effort! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
FFA Cup scores
So it seems that Marty McFly's Sports Almanac extended to the FFA Cup! Reckon that time travelling IP address has got any of the scores correct? Hahaha. - J man708 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
June 2018 Milhist article writing contest
The Writer's Barnstar
For coming second in the June 2018 Milhist article writers contest, with 40 points from 10 articles, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar on behalf of the Milhist coordinators. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, do you still have Alfred Festberg's The Lineage of the Australian Army since back in 2014 you added it as a ref to the Australian Light Horse regiment articles? I am asking because I wondered if you could check the information on the South Australian Mounted Rifles to make sure I've presented the situation accurately in the article? Lastly, to be comprehensive for GA or higher, does the article need to include information on the militia SAMR? Kges1901 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
G'day, I've adjusted the page numbers a little per the copy I have here at home. I would suggest a brief "Perpetuation" section, but the lineage is very complicated, to be honest. I might be able to scan/email some pages for you if you send me your email address via the "email this user" function on my talk page. Please ping me here to let me know if/when you send me an email, as I don't check that inbox very frequently. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I have sent the email. Still, for the sake of comprehensiveness, should the article include a section on the militia unit called the SAMR? I presume there was a relationship since the members of the Boer War SAMR were supposed to be veterans of the local defense force. Kges1901 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: G'day, I've sent you some photos of the pages now via email. Hope they help. Regarding the Militia, yes I think it would be good to include something about this. I believe that many of the militia personnel volunteered for as individuals for service in the Boer War, but the militia units themselves as such did not actually deploy as a formed body. As a reward for volunteering, the units that perpetuated the militia unit later received the South Africa battle honour as an "honorary distinction/banner". Hence, the 3rd and 9th Light Horse received these banners. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Calton: G'day, yes, I agree. Sorry for this, I was trying to unlink only a few year links on the Military of Australia portal, but I have totally stuffed it up. Humblest apologies. I will try to undo it all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
In these cases, it's best to execute a mass-rollback from the user-contributions-page by filtering the edits.That you've already indulged in a manual cleanup, it won't be of much-use now. ∯WBGconverse07:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: Sorry, Arthur, follow up question, if I create a common.js, will that interfere with my monobook.js? Should I transfer all the scripts I have in monobook to common.js to consolidate, or can they function separately without dramas? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The new Zealand army is called the royal New Zealand army. Just like the other realms. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy and queen Elizabeth II is head of state and Commander in Chief of the new Zealand arm forces and is respresented by a govonor general. So I put her majesty on there and stop taking her off. Godsavethequeen001 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Godsavethequeen001: Like I said, please provide a citation to a reliable source that it is the "Royal New Zealand Army", otherwise you should not change it. The Army's own website does not use this designation: [1]. Various branches of the army (i.e. its corps) use the designation, but the Army itself is simply designated as the "New Zealand Army". Wikipedia policy requires references, not opinions per WP:V. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't taken anyone off the commander's list. I reverted your addition of "Royal" to the name of the organisation. Equally, please do not resort to casting aspersions. It matters not what my personal opinion about royalty is. What matters is reliable sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the claim that the Queen is the commander in chief of the NZ Army. She isn't, as the Governor General of NZ holds this role. Please see [2] and [3]. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Rudolf Abel - American mdy or British dmy?
There is concern on Rudolf Abel article whether it should be American dates or Russian. I simply typed out the article as "American English" as tagged on the talkpage. Could you help clear up the confusion. Adamdaley (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Adam, it is probably best to start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with the change, with a ping to the editor who made it. To be honest, I can see arguments for either style, but my argument would be so long as it is consistent, it probably doesn't matter. That said, I don't really see why it had to be changed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
AustralianRupert – He's continuing the reverts. Even though there are now a mixture of date varients through the article. Please intervene to hold the article at a respectfully level of high standards. I would hate having to have done all that late night work for months and now one person thinks they are right. Adamdaley (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I am renaming the "African American" to lets say "1th Illinois Infantry Regiment (Colored)" and I think GELongstreet will use "African American" at the end of the Regiment. Just want to make sure there is no conflict. Adamdaley (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would suggest you outline your proposal in a central location and then ask for opinions about whether there is consensus for this. You can invite GELongstreet to offer their opinion also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No conflict as far as I am concerned. African-American is a term that is, to my knowledge, not used in the original unit names so I agree with you and see no reason why it should be used here. But I haven´t seen it used in that capacity here anyway. ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Jemaah Islamiyah
Greetings Rupert it looks like the IP adreses 175.142.24.96, 115.135.239.155 and 115.135.239.111 are playing a game (my opinion). They remove the template and add it once again back in page. IP adres 175.142.24.96 removed it 7 times yesterday, IP adres 115.135.239.155 did exact the same 12 times today, and also the IP adres 115.135.239.111 did the same too, 4 times today. In total the page was 23 times changed with removing/adding the template in the last 2 days. I personaly don't know it is vadalism or they are playing a game with page or "they" are even just a person. But can you have a look at them (it) and the page? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
G'day, CPA, yeah, not sure to be honest. Looks a bit weird, but not really sure what the go is. To be honest, I prefer to avoid terrorism-related articles. I have lost three friends to the war, and the better part of my soul, so I'd rather not look into that article too much. Sorry. If it looks like devolving into an edit war, it might pay to report it to WP:RPP, but potentially it might be resolved by posting a query on the article's talk page and inviting the editing IPs to comment on why they are doing what they are doing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings Rupert, understandeble, I'm sorry for your lost and thanks once again for your help. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mcb133aco: No worries, I've taken a quick look at those articles and made a couple of minor tweaks, but I'm afraid I'm not really able to get too involved at the moment. Overall, nice work. The Seabee article is looking quite good, and I would encourage you to consider taking it to peer review sometime, as that might help you improve it further. With regards to NMCB 25, I'd suggest expanding the lead a little more so that it summarises the article more fully. Regarding Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133, there are quite a few uncited paragraphs, particularly in the 2005-present section which should be rectified if possible. General observations in relation to all three articles: (1) be careful not to fall into the trap of WP:EDITORIALIZING, (2) the referencing style could be cleaned up a little (although this is minor thing), by the use of templates (e.g. {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}) and is not mandatory, (3) I think you may need to reduce with the amount of images being used as they can be a bit distracting if over used (please see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). Anyway, that is all for now. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
G'day, Adam, I hope you are well. I have adjusted the category sort for you (it is just a matter of adjusting the piping in the category link), but I think it might be best to use the requested move process. I am reducing my editing and won't be venturing an opinion on much moving forward. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Les bon assessors
The Teamwork Barnstar
It is with great pleasure that I award this barnstar jointly and severally to auntieruth, AustralianRupert, Kees08, Nick-D, Peacemaker67 and Zawed. It has been earned partly for helping to nurse Razing of Friesoythe through ACR. I was awed and humbled by the amount of attention, effort, detail and support the six assessors brought to the task. But mostly it has been earned by your doing the same thing for many, many other articles week after week, month after month. Assessors sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
For your long service as a coordinator of WikiProject Military history, including four years as lead coordinator, for your prodigious reviewing work, especially at A-Class, and your solid and collaborative content work. Well done AR, this is richly deserved and long overdue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand that you are editing less now and do not want to foist work on you, but I have access to the majority of the sources now, and believe with expansion that I can nominate it for ACR. If I take the latter course of action I intend to handle the comments myself, and not bother you with it. Kges1901 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: I don't want to stifle your enthusiasm, but I really would prefer it wasn't nominated. That said, if you have your heart set on it, can I at least ask that you wait until mid-November when I will be back home? That way I can at least participate in some capacity. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: Thanks, I don't have an exact date I will be back (as my destiny belongs to others with this trip), but if you haven't heard from me by 12 November, please feel free to nominate then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kges1901: G'day, I won't be able to review it as I have been too involved. Better make me a co-nom. I'm afraid, though, I won't be able to get access to the main sources. It will take weeks for my local library to fly them up to me, by which time I will be moving states again. We will be in a hotel over most of December, so I will be without most of the books I own, too. I will do my best to help out where I can, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but I have the relevant pages from Wilcox on hand, as well as Wallace 1976 if necessary. In that case, I intend to do some reviewing to help reduce the backlog before nominating it, which should be in a few days. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!
Greetings!
You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.
This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.
Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!
Yes. Despite of how events unfolded, I have always looked up to you as one of those with great leadership qualities. Looking forward to your return too. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with PM and Shih. You have always been one of those editors I always looked up to. I learned a lot from you during my initial days (now as well). Hope you'll return soon, take care. KCVelaga (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
My first post on the Coordinators' Talk Page ended "Can I end with a comment on the cordiality and helpfulness I have encountered at MilHist since I became more active a few weeks ago; the project has created a good atmosphere in which to work." I am sure that I am not the only one to have found this. I am sure that this did not happen by accident. For all of your contributions, encouragement and creation of a collegiate atmosphere, thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 23 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
Country Winners
Diversity winner
High quality contributors
Gender-gap fillers
Page improvers
Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Cheers, gents. I am a bit disorientated, to be honest. It seems weird being back home...indeed I woke up this morning in an airport lounge in a bit of a panic as I thought I had misplaced something one shouldn't misplace. I'm sure you understand what I mean. Got to spend a couple of hours at work tomorrow with some admin, then I will get a few days off. Anyway, I will have to start wading through the watchlist, I suppose... regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed those expansions, good stuff. Don't think I've ever written much on those but I probably have every RAAF unit in WP on my watchlist so it's hard to miss...! I haven't a lot of spare time right now but I've very much enjoyed our past collaborations so will definitely stop by when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
@AustralianRupert: It was good of you to nominate the article. I left your statement pretty much intact, while adding my own as well. I hope that’s okay. Thanks kindly for sharing your time and talent (again) on my behalf. I’m well and trust you are too. Regards! Pendright (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
for indicating the peer review at AWNB - too often milhist material about oz doesnt even get a mention - even if it is oz material, appreciated JarrahTree10:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
In the end even if none of the oz editing community turn up - it is at the least indication of the notification within the scope, that really I find quite impressive, as in cfd territory for instance whole sets of oz (or directly related) cats can and have in the past dissapeared without a murmur as no one even thinks of notification at project level. JarrahTree10:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, AustralianRupert. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hello, AustralianRupert. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
The user appears to have requested the page (which was not originally intended for his own userspace) be deleted for one of two reasons, either a good-faith attempt to remove all the content of the editor's userspace as part of a voluntary retirement following a recent ANI discussion of whether he should be subject to a limited TBAN. or an attempt to evade scrutiny in anticipation of a later, broader discussion of the editor and his behaviour. The surviving comments on the talk page (those that aren't his) imply the deleted page was indicative of an "extremist" view, which may be relevant if the editor and his behaviour ever come up at ANI again. Also note that while the editor publicly threatened to retire with his last comment at ANI, he also did so a few months ago, under similar circumstances, and returned a week later once he apparently felt the statute of limitations on his behaviour had run out. For this reason, I should state that I would like either the page to be undeleted pending the outcome of the ANI thread, or undeleted if the editor in question returns to actively editing either before or after the ANI thread is closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Hijiri, I hope you are well. To be honest, I am not sure at the moment whether this is possible, or best practice. At the time of deletion I wasn't aware of the ANI thread, and it seemed a pretty straightforward U1 case, which I see now was potentially not the case. Having said that, in terms of undeletion, as a U1, I'm not sure that anyone but the user in question can request undeletion, although I admit to not being 100 percent on this. Are the edits on the deleted page a key part of the evidence on the ANI? I would also hasten to add that any admin can still review the edits on the deleted page should they deem it necessary in the course of the ANI (or whenever). This can be done through looking at the view "X number deleted edits" link on the redlinked page, and seemingly allows for follow up in the future, if required while also allowing the editor to make what is also potentially a good faith request to delete content in their own user space. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The specific page's contents are not, as far as I am aware (I read SMcC's long OP comment once, two weeks ago), a key part or even something that was mentioned in the ongoing ANI, but the editor's tendency to attempts to evade scrutiny by blanking his talk page rather than archiving, having other pages in his user space deleted, and refusing until recently to bold his AFD !votes (so as to trick the AFD stats analysis tool, which in turn tricked a number of !voters in the ongoing ANI thread into thinking his record is a lot less problematic than it actually is) have all come up, so it wouldn't surprise me if this was an attempt to create an appearance of a "clean start" in the short run, only to return to his old ways not long from now, with still more of the evidence malfeasance removed from public view than before. Obviously, if he is sincere in his intention to leave the project after this recent ANI fiasco, this is all moot; my concern is that he'll stay away just long enough for the ANI thread to get closed with Well, James500 has apparently left the project, so I guess the question of whether he should be warned, narrowly TBANned, broadly TBANned or SBANned is moot? and perhaps for everyone to forget that this page was deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, ok, so I spent quite some time this morning before the kids woke up reading the ANI and it pretty much gave me a headache. It seems quite complex. In the circumstances, I don't feel I understand the situation enough to undelete at this time, and I feel I have to AGF for the moment. That said, I have no dramas with another admin undeleting if they feel it necessary. Regardless, going forward, the contributions will remain viewable for any admin if they have a need as part of the ANI or any other follow up process should it come to that. I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated. I have done some modifications as per your recommendations which hopefully qualifies the article for GA. As for some of your queries, as far as the research goes, there appears to be no significant information whether Kawaji had married or any children. Meanwhile, his appearance in the said manga/anime was significant in the sense that he played major roles in a number of arcs, such as the Kyoto arc and the Feng Shui arc. If there are additional concerns, kindly relay them. Thank you for your review. Arius1998 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Arius1998: G'day, Arius, can I please request you add your responses to the review page, rather than here? It makes it easier for others to follow the review, which is important if/when you take it to ACR or FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Military Historical Society of Australia
Thank you for creating the article, the Military Historical Society of Australia. The structure of the Society website has been updated and content is presently being reviewed. Many back issues have been scanned and will soon be uploaded. While an article for Wikipedia was on the agenda it is pleasing that it has been created by an independent editor. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, Anthony, cheers -- I've used the journal for some of my articles in the past (which I can access through my work library), and saw a request for an article here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 148, so thought I'd have a go at putting something together. I haven't written a similar article before, so hopefully I didn't make too much of a hash of it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series
The Teamwork Barnstar
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@TomStar81: Thanks, Tom, happy to help in any small way. Sorry, I missed this post on my talk page until now. My internet has been quite dodgy this month as I am in and out of hotels until New Years. Thanks for your efforts with the op-ed series: well done for sticking with it for so long! I trust you had a happy Christmas and wish you all the best for 2019. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
I have noticed that you have protected the article Juan Darthés, and that it also has content removed from the history. I suspect that it was something about rape or sexual abuse, and that it must have been removed as a likely BLP problem. However, Darthes is involved in a scandal about that right now, and all the media is discussing it (see here, for example). I'm expanding the article a bit, first with the non-scandal content (he's an actor with a long career, not a WP:BLP1E case), but then I'll move to the one in the news. Of course, with the right care. My question is, knowing that the controversy is really out there, do those edits have content worth salvaging, or are they just plain vandalism? Cambalachero (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: G'day, the hidden edits I've viewed are largely just a single word added to the lead infobox, or to the infobox (i.e replacement of the person's occupation). In the circumstances, I don't think they add much. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Cheers, PM, all the best to you and your family for the Christmas period, too. You've had a really productive year, too; thanks for everything you have done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Good day to you. When you have a moment would you look at all the issues another editor had that you did not with the Seabee article. A look at their talk page indicates that they were just cited for an editing war and I would be happy with anything you do.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
you do
G'day, I have a pretty dodgy internet connection at the moment (I'm an in a hotel while I move house), so can't deep dive too much into the issue, I'm sorry. However, from what I can tell, the warning for edit warring on the user's talk page was for an unrelated page, and is potentially a subjective matter (i.e. whether they were reverting vandalism etc), so it is best to AGF in relation to their edits on the Seabee article. If you disagree with one of their edits in particular, I suggest starting a thread on the Talk:Seabee page and inviting the editor to engage in a conversation to determine where consensus lies. Beyond that, though, I have made a few minor tweaks that hopefully help in some way. Regarding the issues presented in the tags, there are still some sentences or paragraphs that need a citation, so the citation tag is probably correct, and I feel that the article could benefit with further copy editing, so I'd suggest maybe listing it at WP:GOCE to see if anyone there is keen to help. Regarding formatting, there are some issues that I can see, but they are by no means insurmountable. For instance, some of the capitalisation doesn't seem correct (common nouns being capitalised, for instance), and the use of bullet points for notes doesn't seem ideal to me. (Some of the notes may be considered too much detail, so hiving them off to subordinate articles, where appropriate, or paring them down if they are unnecessary might be a way forward). Anyway, thanks for your ongoing efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
Thank you for the input and edits. Oh- and G'day. Did three tours on the Ice and managed to make it to your corner of the world twice. I have redone the format so that there is a much more simplified index. Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
G'day, no worries, happy to help. I nearly made it to Hawaii once for an exercise but the trip fell through, although I have been lucky enough to work quite closely with the Marines here in Australia. All the best for 2019! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you! The question of the day is do you think the tags can be removed? I worked on the caps on the nouns( it's hard to shake that German background in me, sorry )Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
@Mcb133aco: Happy New Year! I think you've made a pretty good effort to rectify the issues identified in the tags. Prior to removal, though, I'd suggest you post a quick note on the talk page stating that you believe you have addressed the issues, and intend to remove the tags unless there are any objections. Wait a couple of days for anyone to object, and if they don't then you should be ok to remove them. If anyone does object, then ask them to clarify what else needs to be done, so that you can hone in on their concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, Pendright. I wish you all the best for the year ahead. Thanks for your efforts with the WAVES article, and all the others you have improved. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
2018 Military Historian of the Year
2018 Military Historian of the Year
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Greetings AR, I wanted to say happy New Year and hopefully you'd have a great 2019. Because of timezones is it highly posible that you are living in 2019 when you see this message. That's why I'll say it now already, even it is still 2018 here. I would say: "we Europeans follow you the Australians into the future". Cheers and have a great day and year. CPA-5 (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reviewing efforts in 2018, AR!
The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
For your reviews of 109 Military history articles in 2018, I hereby award you the Premium Reviewer Barnstar. We wouldn't have the amazing throughput we have as a project, if it wasn't for you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: G'day, no worries. Unfortunately, I haven't located any more yet as I am a bit busy at the moment (still finalising moving house), but if you take a look at these sources, you might have more luck than me: [4] All of the USMC sources written by service personnel in the course of their duties are usually in the public domain, so images found in those sources can be uploaded with the PD-USMC licence on Commons. If you get stuck with licencing, or formatting the upload, please let me know. Happy to help if I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
AustralianRupertThanks. Looks like we have something in common. I'm also in the process of moving.
Spouse is at our other home, while I am setting things up here. We have owned this place for 18 years but unable to live in it as spouse was employed elsewhere's, now it is time to come home, Fun trying to fit contents of two homes into one. (This house was rented part time till lately). I am editing an article for the Pig War something I know a little about. I have three books on the subject, but they are in boxes in the garage and I would have to dig through them.I might if I feel up to it.I've downloaded some images from the National Park Service, United States, which per WP commons means that they are copyright free.I will upload them on the morrowOldperson (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Australian Better Families
What's with shortening the semi-protection here to three days? The party has been trying to force their spin on the article for at least a month: trying to get them to do something other than insistently revert to try to get their way through brute force in a week would be challenging enough, but there's no chance of breaking that habit in three days. The reduction has basically ensured that they'll start again in three days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
G'day, it was an error on my part, sorry. Both Ymblanter and I were looking at the article at the same time. Ymb protected it a couple of seconds before I hit the save button, and before my browser refreshed. When I hit save I didn't get an edit conflict message, which the software usually produces. I am not sure why I didn't get that message, but have corrected the error now I hope. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Seabee
I missed your comment on paragraphs. Thank you for the observation. I did not set out to write that article. My edits were added as I gathered the information. From the footnotes you will see it did not all come from a single source and I just added and added. Very poor approach to doing an article but, as I said it was not my intent to write the entire thing. Thank you very much for all the input.
I do have a question. Another editor from the military project left me a message that they were surprised that my ID has not been tagged COI any and all edits I might make regarding the military. Is that something that is done regardless of a neutral POV?Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)
G'day, I would say it is because of your username, which could be taken to imply that you are currently serving in Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133. If you are editing as part of your duties at that unit, it would be best for you to self declare a COI on your user page, potentially using something like this template: Template:UserboxCOI. If you are simply editing as a hobby, and not as part of your duties, it might be best to just change your username so that people don't jump to this conclusion. (To do so, this page provides some advice: Wikipedia:Changing username). You would, of course, though still need to be mindful to continue to make sure you are maintaining a neutral point of view, but that obviously applies to everyone here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. What you pointed out is an issue I have with many of the other editors I have encountered. Many seem to be very judgmental. They bring very biased POVs in my opinion. While they are knowledgeable about the Rules, MOS, POV, seem they seem to have a superficial understanding of what they have read. MCB has two meanings in the U.S military that I know, both are posted in the Wikipedia: Marine Corps Base and Mobile Construction Battalion. The first is still in use while the later was used from 1948 to 1968. NMCB is the current abbreviation. While the "N" gets dropped by many, MCB is not used by the Navy. It irks me to no end to deal with people that jump to conclusions while they lack the information to make the judgement they have come to or form the opinion they hold.
As to my further contributions, I expect there will be very few. The only reason I did what I did was that the posted material was lacking or incorrect. I have posted enough footnotes for most of it to stand. I would do more about the UDTs, but I think that article has POV issues and needs a near complete rewrite. I will pass.
G'day, I can understand that, although I am sorry to hear it. I have slowly been reducing my own article contributions over the past year or so for some of these same reasons (and several others) and have considered ceasing altogether many times. There are some great aspects to Wikipedia, and some not so great. Anyway, I do hope to see you around in the future, but if not I wish you all the best for your offline endeavours and would like to thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia so far. The articles you've worked on are significantly better now due to your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Otago Regiment
Hi, the Otago Infantry Regiment has existed on and off since World War I under a few names and often divided between other forces. There is a page covering World War I Otago Infantry Regiment and a page covering about 1948-2012 Otago and Southland Regiment. Should I be trying to make this all one page or should they be treated separately? It is likely that WWI will be their only significant engagements as a Regiment (in WWII the Otago’s seems to be split between at least a few battalions). What is considered tidy or correct on the Military Project or in your view. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)).
G'day, Dushan, nice work on the article so far. Re your question: I think that if the Otago Regiment merged with the Southland Regiment, I could see that it would make sense to have three separate articles: Otago Regiment (or Otago Infantry Regiment if that was it's proper name), which would deal with all things up to 1948 including World War I, inter war years and World War II, Southland Regiment which would detail all things relating to that regiment prior to the merge, and then Otago and Southland Regiment for the amalgamated unit post 1948, albeit with a very brief summary of the previous history of the two separate regiments to tie it together. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Natale Olivieri started bottling carbonated fruit drinks in the mid-1920s. However, when he attempted to bottle a chocolate drink, he found that it would soon spoil. Observing his wife canning fruits and vegetables, he asked her to use the same heat processing techniques with his chocolate drink. It worked! He began bottling the pasteurized chocolate drink named Yoo-Hoo at 133 Farnham Avenue in 1928.” Excerpt from Images of America: Garfield by Howard D. Lanza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.126.200 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to add that to the article, please discuss your addition on the article's talk page. You can then see if there is consensus for your addition. Continuing to post this information in this manner, however, is not constructive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
The opreational history of jf 17 is being changed again and again by some one and the current history refers to only referenes from indian news papers and reports about the recent engagments on 27 feb.
Also you can check F16.net for any authenticity of claims. You need to edit it tjhats false news Mehtab00 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mehtab00: The article is currently protected until 21 March to stop edit warring and promote discussion. I suggest you raise any concerns you have about the references on the article's talk page at this time (which is not protected, and which you can currently edit). That will allow those interested in the article to reach some consensus and determine whether to proceed with your suggested change/s. Please make sure your arguments are nested within policy (for instance WP:RS and WP:NPOV). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Kokoda Track
Hi Rupert
Someone is trying to say that the 39th Battalion and the 21st Brigade were not outnumbered on the track. I deleted a general comment in the intro to that effect but left the comments down below. It feels as if they're referencing themselves, maybe a book or a thesis? Anyway, the party does not really give a timeline and to make a general claim to that effect is nonsense, certainly up until the time that the 21st Bde was reinforced. how do we keep an eye on that? GJW (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gjw9999: G'day, are you referring to this edit: [5], by Hawkeye? If so, I would advise not removing information like that without discussing it on the talk page first to allow others to provide an opinion and establish consensus for or against the change per WP:CONSENSUS. The lead summarises the article, and that information is in fact referenced in the body. From what I have seen, the weight of most recent work does in fact seem to indicate that the idea that the Australians were outnumbered on the track is not necessarily accurate, or where they were outnumbered, it apparently wasn't by as much once thought. I don't have the book at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that Peter Williams' The Kokoda Campaign 1942: Myth and Reality provides quite a bit about various strength states for comparison. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi AR and Gjw9999, you will note that AR, Hawkeye and I have worked togeather on the campaign series. I do have the book atm. WRT the statement in the lead, please see Significance of the campaign and ref 425 (Williams, 2012, p. 233).
The heart of the Kokoda myth is that the Australians were defeated an the Kokoda Track from July to September 1942 because they were greatly outnumbered. Japanese records show that this is untrue. The Papuans and Australians by one and a half to one up to first Kokoda. At Second Kokoda and Deniki they were slightly outnumbered, and at Isurava there was one Australian for each Japanese engaged. During the retreat from Eora to Efogi the Japanese superiority was at its highest, at close to two to one for five days from 1 September. At Efogi, the two sides were about equal strength, and at the last Australian defeat at Ioribawa it was the Australians who outnumbered the Japanese almost two to one.
The quote is from Williams' concluding chapter. The details regarding the individual battles are discussed in detail in the body of the work. Williams' analysis considers those troops engaged at each battle, not the total strengths of each command along the track. With Horii's force having an effective strength of about 6,000 (1 Regt and one depleated Regt) this may still give the impression of Japanese numerical superiority but this force was not committed en masse. In general, the advance was made by regiment, and sometimes, even smaller forces, so that for example, the initial attack on Kokoda was made by about 200, while subsequently (after both forces had been reinforced) it was made by about 600. I hope that this gives some context. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi All I'm happy to leave it to you. Well done on the book.
I'd like your opinion Rupert on how much I should be putting in citations other than the ones that are already there, for "Unit colour patch"? I hope you like what I've done to 'unit colour patch', in the sense that I hope it makes sense or seems useful to someone else. It is very hard to visually display all of the relationships between battalions, brigades and divisions during WW2, so I did not try yet, although I'm thinking of a way. I think the page could be a reference spot for looking up the changes in the formations in a way that "Digger History" probably once did, except that the "Digger History" web site seems to be a bit broken nowadays. It seems to be easier now to navigate "Digger History" from an external search engine.
gjw9999
@Gjw9999: G'day, its looking quite good, thank you. The easiest rule of thumb is at least one citation at the end of each paragraph, or internal list, or each note. For instance, I would suggest adding a citation to notes such as this "The 6th Division never became a battle formation, but was instead disbanded to provide reinforcements to other Divisions", and "2nd Battalion of the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade was a British battalion " (for example). They should also be added to the end of paragraphs such as those in the CMF and 2nd AIF sections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
1. I think I figured out some aspects of the artillery colour patch system. I think it was individuals who joined the AIF in WW2 artillery units who wore the grey trim, while members of the same units who remained in the militia did not wear the trim. I think this is why I see photos of uniforms and relics with and without the AIF grey trim. So the same unit could have members with and without the grey trim at the same time. This was not the case in the infantry, where a unit became AIF when 65% of the members transferred, but in most cases the unit colour patch remained the same, or, if the grey trim was adopted (eg. 61st Bn) then everyone wore it.
I love how the colour patches reflect the history like that.
2. In WW2 the artillery units were split up and sent everywhere, which was why I was having trouble deciphering who was who and what patch they owned. So an AA battery in Darwin and a field battery in Port Moresby could belong to the same brigade and have the same colour patch. A lot of the references on the internet (especially plaques and other memorials) are about batteries and regiments, because it was the batteries and regiments defending certain localities that the associations and the public were honouring. They did not identify the brigades on the plaques, which can become confusing.
The same happened in WW1 to a certain extent, but not as complicated because everyone on a gun was, after all, on the Somme and relatively proximate (both in terms of location and target acquisition). So I think I have sorted artillery for WW1.
I'm still sorting artillery for WW2, but I am looking for brigades, and trying to treat batteries and regiments as the clue to the brigades.
In this sense, artillery patches (brigades) only identified to one level higher than infantry patches (battalion). As far as i can tell, therefore, different regiments had the same patches (eg. the 2/8th Field Regiment and the 13th Field Regiment).
That's the basis on which I'm now working on artillery.
This is a commercial web site that sells to military members and units. I assume it is therefore reliable.
Any thoughts? Are their commercial catalogues complete, do you think? Is there a place to look up whether any units are redundant (as for 4th Combat Engineers, East Ringwood)? (I presume they're accurate because they are photos and they sell to members.)
I know that people who have worked on this page before me have used this web site. And of course we have no idea who looks at these web pages and whether those people are able to make changes, but nobody has complained to my knowledge about the modern RAE patches I have put up. I have no way to check any official sources of this kind of information.
@Gjw9999: G'day, Greg, re the website -- many RSMs source current UCPs for their units through them (and they have been granted authorisation to sell these products by the ADF), so it is probably pretty accurate, although where possible I'd suggest verifying the information through other sources also. For instance, Philip Blackwell's Australian Army Unit Colour Patches 1987-20008 is a pretty good source for some of the more recent UCPs. Many of your engineer patches are in that work, so can be confirmed that way. Some aren't, though, due to some of the more recent changes in the corps. The Army website also maintains the Unit Colour Patch register here: [6], which is probably your best bet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rupert
I have added some photos to 'unit colour patch'.
Some were already in Wikimedia Commons ('Jack' Axford MM VC for 16th Bn 1st AIF, and Reg Saunders MBE with Tom Derrick VC DCM for 2/7th and 2/48th).
But George V investing John Monash was not. Could you please check the copyright to help ensure the King and the General won't be deleted (and I won't be blocked)?
I added the phrase {{PD-AustraliaGov}} to the copyright field and that seemed to do the trick.
Click on the photo from the war with the slouch hat.
where Pte Asquith is wearing the New Guinea Air Warning Wireless Company patch, one which someone chatting with you previously had wanted put on this page.
@Gjw9999: G'day, without knowing where the photo was first published, or who took it (i.e is it an official Army photo?) uploading it may be a little iffy. I'd suggest erring on the side of caution with that one, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
G'day to you mate.
I am back with a new problem that I completely do not understand. I posted a photo to Wikicommons from the Seabee Magazine that has a source tag right on it (Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy Seabee Museum). https://seabeemagazine.navylive.dodlive.mil/2018/07/15/this-week-in-seabee-history-july-15-july-21/ File:ACB 2- Beirut.jpg (I left the brackets off so it would not take up your talk page)
An editor in the UK as tagged it for quick deletion for copyright violation. It is a U.S. military photo, in U.S. Government archives published in a U.S. Government publication. It is in the public domain. Please explain how I got this wrong.Mcb133aco (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mcb133aco: G'day, I don't think the file meets the criteria for speedy deletion as it has a seemingly valid licence. The Commons speedy deletion criteria for copyright violations requires there to be "no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work". I don't think that exists with that file, unless I am missing something. It would be better if there is doubt about the licence to follow the regular deletion process to allow a proper debate, rather than requesting speedy deletion: [8]. Commons deletion policy requires that if anyone objects to speedy deletion that the tagging editor should convert it to a regular deletion request, per: [9]. As such, have you tried talking to the tagging editor to explain why you believe their reasoning is incorrect, and explaining that you object to speedy deletion? I note that you've written something on your talk page on Commons, but I don't know if the tagging editor will have seen this. That said, I also note you are using some strong language there, which may derail your argument. I understand this can be frustrating, but it is best to try to remain calm and assume good faith, otherwise your argument (no matter whether you are correct or not) can be undermined. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mcb133aco: Correction to my last, I believe that if you object to the speedy deletion, you can do so by converting the speedy deletion on the file description page to a regular deletion request. This will allow you to put your case forward in a more formal setting. (This is set out in the deletion template that the tagging editor put on your talk page: "If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request." Also, on the file itself, it states: "Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request and remove this template.") So I think that is your way forward. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you as always. As you no doubt have seen I am less gracious than you.
Have done as you said and opened a deletion discussion page and remove my POV comments per your prompting.
I have completed my effort on the Seabee article. After all this time I realized I had gone about it completely wrong. I should have rewritten the article from the get go instead of the editing as-you-go that I did. Added a couple of lines to the leade that tie the it together the way it ought to be.
Thank you again. Mcb133aco (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
New request for you.
Amphibious Construction Battalion "One" has no images in Wikicommons. However, there are numerous images for Amphibious Construction Battalion "1". The commons link: {Commons category} will not link to those images to the actual article. Do you know how to get around the issue: One vs 1? thank you Mcb133aco (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
I just had an editor rollback edits to the Seabee article without stating why. I have asked them why but, when you have a moment would you give it a look and give me your thoughts what I did wrong now. ThanksMcb133aco (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I received a reply that the other editor made a "mistake". Sorry to have troubled you but, I could not see my error.have a great day.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mcb133aco: Sorry for the late reply -- I had to go away for work for awhile. Glad it was sorted. AustralianRupert (talk)
It says here "The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person who, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world and that you can relax. May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day." So here you go. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
G'day AR, I've finished expanding the Badcoe article with material from some books on the AATTV and all the usual texts on VC recipients, and have nominated it for GAN. I'd appreciate it if you had the time to review, as I know you have an interest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, sure I will take a look. Will try to get to it tomorrow -- just a heads up, though, I have to go interstate again mid next week for a conference in Canberra, so the review may be interrupted throughout the week, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
June 2019,
Hi, I have noticed that an editor, Gaurang kapoor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaurang_kapoor) Is inserting spam link. As he has done with Nusrat Jahan and Mimi Chakraborty. I have already reverted those. If you check his talk page, you'll find that he has been already warned for promoting his own website or something else. Though, he didn't refrain from that. I don't think he has no intention in contributing to wikipedia but more interested in promoting some websites contained improper images. Thanks. (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, not all of their edits appear to be spam, for instance [10] and they are spaced over a considerable period of time, so a quick solution isn't imperative, in my opinion. Additionally, the warnings on their talk page have been escalated quite quickly jumping several levels, rather than going through the usual level 1 to 4 warnings. As such. I'd suggest you try a more personal approach, with an original comment on their talk page explaining why you think the links are spam and asking them to refrain (rather than a templated warning). If they then continue then a post to WP:ANI would be best as it will allow a considered response. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. That's one of the items I check for when using that script, for precisely this reason. Somehow I missed that the dash was in a file name. Onel5969TT me12:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, easy mistake. I'm sure I've done something similar in the past. Thanks for fixing all the Cape Gloucester dabs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
Hi AR, trust you are well. I'm beginning to look at Richard Travis with a view to taking it to A-Class review. Are still happy to be involved as a co-nominator? Also, the article refers to two mentions in dispatches - however in Byrne's history of the Otago Regiment (a reference for the article), Travis is not listed in the appendix as a MID. All my books are in storage at the moment pending a house move that will be completed in a couple of weeks time so can't check those at the moment. I may get to the library over that time and will try and look at a couple of different resources on military awards for NZEF soldiers but checking Gasson's 1966 encyclopedia entry for Travis, there is a reference to him being mentioned in "Routine orders". This is different to a MID, isn't it? I wonder if these routine orders have been confused for MIDs? I've checked his military file. It is hard to read but I don't see any MIDs there. Any thoughts? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zawed: G'day, yes, happy to help where I can although work has me pretty busy at the moment -- travelling a bit ad much longer hours than I'd like, so I haven't been doing much involved editing of late. Regarding the MIDs, interesting question -- the Auckland Museum mentions two MIDs [11] as does the Commonwealth War Graves Commission [12]. But neither provide dates, unfortunately. The service record is very hard to read, but seems to mention some incidents from July 1916 that might have led to Travis being mentioned in despatches, including early patrol work and then going out into no mans land to search for wounded raiders and recovering equipment. These might be the MIDs. Have you tried searching the London Gazette for July 1916? I wonder also if it might be in Gasson's book. Unfortunately, no libraries near me seem to hold it, though: [13]. I note that the images of Travis' War Medal and Croix de Guerre (on the Auckland War Museum site: [14]) both have the leaf or palm device which indicates a mention in despatches. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Finally, I wonder if there is anything that could be said in terms of legacy, etc. I found a couple of mentions, but not much really. For instance, the Dick Travis VC Memorial Shoot at the Karori Rifle Club: [16] and Travis Street, Napier: [17]. These probably aren't the best in terms of sourcing, so if I get a chance next week, I will try to look up the subject on ProQuest and see what comes up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good catch with the oak leaf on the medal ribbons. I will review the LG and I have a book, albeit in storage, that lists all awards to NZEF in WWI. The library has a copy of it as well. That may point me to a specific date for the LG if I can't find it otherwise. Yes, I was looking to work up a legacy section as I came across an article to do with a 100 year commemoration. I was also wanting to include that portrait. Zawed (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thanks. I'm not too sure where the vague phrase "several battalions of the 58th regiment" came from, but it sounds and reads oddly. If three battalions were involved, then that was the entire regiment; "several battalions" can therefore only mean two battalions. Note; the other battalion of the 58th Regiment constituted Sato's "Right Attack Force" (source Fergal Keane, "Road of Bones", not immediately to hand). HLGallon (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, I'm pretty sure I introduced it when I was trying to verify the term "Left Assault Force", sorry. The only ref I could find with the term specifically at that point was Katoch (can't seem to find it specifically in Allen unfortunately), but at the same time Katoch doesn't not readily identify the number of battalions -- so it was kind a hedge bet, I guess. Reading through Allen, though, it becomes clear it was two battalions from the 58th (II and III), so I'd meant to change it back last night but it slipped my mind amidst a bout of fever (home sick with the flu at the moment). Anyway, good catch and thanks once again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
If you can eventually lay your hands on Keane, it might be a good addition to the article to add a note, or a clarifying sentence, about the other battalion forming the Right Attack Force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this correct? "The brigade consisted of 152 (Indian) and 153 (Gurkha) Parachute Battalions, with a machine gun company, a mountain artillery battery and other supporting arms." As I read it there were 305 battaltions in the brigade. Maybe it should read: The Brigade consisted of the 152nd (Indian) and 153rd (Gurkha) Parachute Battalions.Oldperson (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
G'day, these are just the unit designations, not a description of how many battalions there were. In this regard, it is just a matter of style, i.e the choice to use an ordinal suffix or not. My personal choice is to use the ordinal suffix, but when I started working on the article the units were displayed without them. I note that Rooney (one of the refs used in the article) does not use the suffixes, so I guess I just decided to leave as is. The use of capitals for "Parachute Battalions" here indicates it is part of their name, rather than implying that there were a certain number of parachute battalions. I'm not adverse to adding the ordinals if you think it absolutely necessary, but I suspect that there was a reason the original editor did not. I probably wouldn't capitalise "The Brigade" here, as per the guidance at MOS:MILTERMS. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Error reports
Hey, nice to meet you! Looks like you have written many things in your userpage, but it is not appearing. I can see that text while editing your page, but not while viewing it. I think it is so because you have written all that text as a comment, which makes it disappear. Let me know if that was intentional, and if it wasn't, I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Administrator changes
Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
Gogo Dodo
Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
Miscellaneous
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Arbitration
.svg)
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Zealand and Australian Division for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
; see Talk:New Zealand and Australian Division 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Obituaries
.jpg)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKing_George_V_congratulating_Lieutenant_General_Sir_John_Monash_KCB_VD.jpg&type=revision&diff=349679014&oldid=349311339){kind=link}
CheckUser changes