User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 10

Available to help
G'day Ac, let me know if you want any help with the post-drive admin. I am definitely not a techhead, but I can add up... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Thanks very much for your help with this. Things got a bit busy at work over last few days so I haven't been able to get around to this. Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't done anything yet, and it appears the adding up bit is done. Happy to help with gong distribution as needed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I see. Cheers nonetheless! Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

 * Thanks Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers.

 * Thanks mate. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 Backlog Reduction Drive
Some gratuitous comments from a newbie in projects like this.
 * Like most who joined in, I focused on the incomplete B class checklists. My experience with the 100 odd I did during the campaign was that most were incomplete because the "system" allows a  to be listed.  I don't know if this is a feature or a bug, but I found no more than 5-10 articles that actually had entered some values for the B factors (most had a y/n remaining behind).  I would support requiring some value to be entered for each factor to avoid an error message, but from the number that contained the "importance" value, I suppose we're dealing with legacy assessments.
 * Of the checklists I completed, I downgraded one to stub. In the rules, I'd suggest mentioning expressly whether this counts as a completed B checklist or not. (I didn't enter it)
 * About 5-10 of the articles I completed checklists for wound up with C Class ratings. I don't know how to get around the conflict of interest issues, but it seems to me that this includes an assessment as well as a completion of a checklist and should merit a higher score. Perhaps a mechanism for a second set of eyes with credit for an assessment to each?
 * Some of the incomplete checklists should not have been there in the first place. I found about a half dozen assesments on redirect pages and two that had companion articles covering all information that would put them in WP:MILHIST.  I put the ones I delisted on my list of checklists completed the end and added a note explaing what I did, but it seems to me removing the template is more equivalent to completing an assessment (because the action assesses whether the article should be counted).  Worth the same number of points, so more a comment on where to list than anything else.
 * Timing. The last article I worked on was a grammar issue.  I completed it on the 30th and listed it on the articles for assessment on the 30th and it was assessed on the 30th but I didn't add it to my worksheet until the 1st.  Perhaps an explanation of this could be in the rules.
 * Finally a comment on one user's five points. I saw this user's name a number of times on the assessment page -- to the extent that I thought he might be sandbagging and intending to enter a thousand points on June 30th.  My personal opinion is that he earned more points than he took credit for.  Perhaps he just dropped out of the contest.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some excellent points. There were a number of issues that came up during the drive which probably could be clarified in future versions. Agree - Adam does a lot of work for the project behind the scenes that goes unrecognised. Anotherclown (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the incomplete checklists should not have been there in the first place. I found about a half dozen assesments on redirect pages. I'm afraid I rather punished your honesty, Lineagegeek, and discounted them. I was responsible for "delisting" seventy or so expert-attention articles, which took some work checking no reason had been provided at an appropriate stage, and so on, but I didn't claim because I felt that was something rather different to the contest - I then treated cases like yours by analogy. You deserve an additional pat on the back for doing that, I think, but not the points in the contest. In any case, I made it easy enough to change. (Something to clarify in future.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a poor map
In regards to this I don't see how it's a poor map at all - it does exactly what it's supposed to do, and is admirably clear. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers Nick - probably my skewed sense of humour (or lack thereof if you ask my wife). Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway I saw something Ian did a while back for RAAF article and it inspired me (even ripped off the background from the same map). Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for knocking that one up. Not bad at all. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for the GA review. --S.G.(GH) ping! 13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

AATTV
G'day, mate, do you by any chance have the following books: McNeil (1984) The Team and Lyles (2004) Vietnam Anzacs from Osprey? If so, could you please see if they have anything that can support the "citation needed" tags in the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam article. I think that there might be something on p. 104 in McNeil and p. 54 in Lyles, but I can only see snippet view in Google books so I'm not sure. A new user, User:Laurie nicholson (a former AATTV member), has added some information to the article and I'm trying to help him cite it to reliable sources. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep got both - will do. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Had a look - both refs have relevant info but most of it is already included with cites already. Probably not a lot a more I can add. Sorry. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I think Michael Caufield's The Vietnam Years might have something about the uniforms. I was almost certain Lyles had something about it on p. 54, but I must be mistaken. Thanks anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there is definitely useful information in Lyles p. 54 there but I think most of it is already covered in the article. Could include it but would probably require rewriting the current article quite a bit. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Fricourt et al.
AC and OzR, can I have an opinion on the structure of the "Other Engagements" for the Somme battle? If I use the same one as I did for Fricourt, I'll be duplicating most of the information in the Background and Prelude sections (I've already overlapped a lot that's in the First day of the Somme page). Can you suggest pages I can look, at to decide the level of detail I should leave in please?Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith. Another example is Battle of Megiddo (1918). Might provide you with some ideas. Anotherclown (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Jackson review
G'day, I've started the GA review for Oliver David Jackson. You can find my initial comments here: Talk:Oliver David Jackson/GA1. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking the time with this one. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aust-Army-SGT.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-SGT.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete it as it has been replaced by another user. I've added the tag. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallipoli Campaign
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Gallipoli Campaign you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 GA bot, on behalf of Dank -- 15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallipoli Campaign
The article Gallipoli Campaign you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Gallipoli Campaign for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dank -- 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Something for me
I need to write this so I can make sense of it later. This is for me, if you read this I don't care but don't reply. I had a moment of realisation but it was gone before I could understand it. Either I came to see that nothing anyone ever did ever mattered or that everything everyone has ever done was more important than we can ever comprehend. Whatever I came to know in that moment made me sadder than I have ever been before. All those men who gave their lives willingly thought they were doing so for a worthy cause but maybe they were wrong? All their suffering and all their fear, beyond imagination other than what we have suffered and feared ourselves, probably meant nothing. Everything for nothing. Who are we to judge anyone? We shouldn’t think ill of anyone just because they are not us. Each of us unique and irreplaceable, filled with original thought, never to exist again once we are gone, each of us the most important person in the world to someone. Our sacrifice not worth it. Yet we strive to make a difference... to matter. Even if it means pain or death. But we only matter in the minds of men, and the women that love us, and when we are gone, and they too, what then? Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Alexander McDonald
I looked up his funeral notice in the Courier-Mail on microfilm, which thankfully does confirm he is the Major General (my other sources did not say he was an Major General, so there was a small possibility that I had found a man with similar name and age). Because it's 1993, it's copyright so I cannot upload it to Commons or pass it to you via WP in any form (sigh). But I can email you it if it would be useful to you. If so, email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au Kerry (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for doing this, much appreciated. Looks like you added everything so no need to send the article. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Aus Army Officer Insignia
Fantastic! Good work!! Thank you!!! (No more tedious interactions with NFCC pedants!!!!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallipoli Campaign
The article Gallipoli Campaign you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gallipoli Campaign for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dank -- 19:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

 * Thanks mate. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary
Why have you used the edit summary (Undid revision 566702797 by Woody (talk) and added correct publisher? You didn't undo my edit, my edit fixed a broken ref, you can't have "work=" and "newspaper=" parameters in the same reference. I'm sure it wasn't your intention but it rightly or wrongly seems to be implying an error on my part. In any case, the edit summary is misleading in that you haven't undone my edit. Woody (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually yes I do think you made an error. The publisher is not The Sydney Morning Herald (that clearly is the name of the newspaper), the publisher is Fairfax Media. So I undid your change, deleted work=AAP, and then added the correct publisher in a single edit (hence my edit summary which states exactly that). Pls have a look at the other entries on the article and you will see that it is consistent with those. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Albert
Battle of Albert (1916) I've just finished expanding this and notice that it was already at b-class. Would you mind having a quick look to see what it would take to reach A or Good Article standard please.Keith-264 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Anotherclown (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

11th Battalion
G'day, I'm currently working on the 11th Battalion (Australia). If you get a chance, can you please check to see if Kuring could be used as a citation for this: "A separate 11th Battalion, Royal Western Australia Regiment was reformed separately in 1967. In 1987, the 11th Battalion was merged with the 28th Battalion to form the current 11th/28th Battalion, Royal Western Australia Regiment"? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Had a look in Kuring but there isn't anything in there I'm afraid. Will have a look and see what else I can find in my other books. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No luck with my dead tree sources. The RWAR Association website might be a useful source: . Hope it helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found a ref online and have added that now, but if possible I'd prefer a print source. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Anotherclown (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

5/7 Battalion RNZIR
Hi 5/7 Battalion RNZIR is the name of the unit as per the directive that established the unit. Unfortunately 5th/7th would be incorrect. cheers 121.75.84.13 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. 5/7 is clearly a truncation of 5th and 7th Bns. Regardless, I agree that "5/7" is common in official documentation but wiki has its own format, so pls respect that. I've already provided you with the a link to demonstrate the precedence for this so change it back pls. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:MILMOS for the relevant policy. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mate I'll change it back for you but the directive signed by the Chief of Army states 5/7 - that is the official name of the unit as per the policy u have pointed out. I am a member of the unit and it is not known as 5th/7th in any form - never has been and never will be unless he changes his mind! This being the case the page is not correct - over to you but I will change it back for you. Regards 121.75.84.13 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever, we have all served our time. Regardless, wikipolicy clearly states the unit should be presented as "Xth Battalion" per the link I provided. Like I said glad you want to contribute to Wikipedia just use the style guide adopted and there won't be an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway it is clearly presented as "5th/7th Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment" on the order of battle published by the NZ MoD here . Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Favour
Battle of Verdun would you mind having a quick look to see if the banner can be removed? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Keith, I'm out of town at the moment so I didn't see this request until now. Looks like you've done enough to address the "references req'd" tag to me. I've reassessed it as B class. Good to see an important article like this get some attention. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. It still has many deficiencies but I've managed to find a bit more detail for the bare bones.Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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) 00:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No. 38 Squadron RAAF FAC
Hi, You reviewed this article when it was at ACR, and if you have time I'd appreciate it if you could consider posting a review in the FAC at Featured article candidates/No. 38 Squadron RAAF/archive1? It's been open for a couple of weeks now and hasn't attracted many comments. Please post a critical review if you don't think that the article is up to scratch! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries Nick. I'll stop by and have a look. I've never really done much reviewing at FAC so I'll have to have a look at a few to see how to do it first. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Affghanistan - with two "f"s
One learns something new every day. That one snuck up on me and bit me on the bum. Thanks for the info. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, a very easy mistake to make. Certainly looked like a typo I agree. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

RAR
G'day, AC, the relevant discussion for removing that image was evidently here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - my point is the edit summary used was imprecise and lacked justification, hence I reverted and requested discussion. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I could tell that "discussion" was opened and closed by the same editor. Indeed most of the image "discussions" seem to be that way. That's not self serving at all... Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The edit summary could have been clearer if it had linked directly to the discussion. I also agree that it probably would have been better from an oversight point of view if someone independent had closed the discussion. That said, regardless of what I think of the policy personally, it seems like the correct interpretation of NFCC. Probably best to leave it as you haven't got much chance of getting it overturned. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why so many people who worry about the usage of non-free images also conduct themselves in a rude fashion. A polite note from pointing out the discussion when you reverted their changes would have saved everyone a lot of grief. Posting a warning template below without any attempt at a polite discussion is really bad form. There's a discussion of related issues at WP:ANI. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I also think that their closure probably violates the closing advice posted at Non-free content review where it says "Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." As they nominated the images, they would seeminly be "involved". Having said that the interpretation is probably correct so it's probably best just to drop it as it only serves to reduce editorial enjoyment and increase stress. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. I've just mentioned you in that ANI thread by the way. On a happier note, you might be interested to note that the website of the Governor-General has recently re-licensed all of its content under a Wikipedia friendly Creative Commons license. It doesn't take too much digging through the archives of the current and previous GGs events to find photos of them on significant occasions with military units and service personnel. I imagine that this would be helpful in contributing to fixing the under-illustration of the articles on Army units. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks gents. Will take your advice and move on. Frys my soul because this bloke is dodgy but I guess no one is few are prepared to call him on it. Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW Nick I saw your post elsewhere about this so was probably a to general in my whinge above (it certainly wasn't directed at either yourself or AR). More than most you do your best in these areas. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How dare you warn another editor for having a contrary opinion to you. I disagreed with a series of edits you made because you failed to provide a detailed edit summary, hence I reverted and requested a discussion per WP:BRD. Without discussing you reverted again. Meanwhile, another user had to provide a link to the "discussion" I presume you are relying on to support these edits, yet on reviewing the link the "discussion" was clearly opened by you, had only a few comments and no consensus, and was then closed by you to support the outcome you were seeking. I then challenge you to justify your edit and you threaten me. Sounds reasonable. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A Class review in progress for Werner Voss
Hello,

I believe I have dealt with the issues you questioned, though admittedly the formality of unit names is still an open issue. Please check to see if I have adequately addressed your concerns.

Thank you for volunteering to assess this article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Gday George. Was in the process of writing a few comments on the review when it was closed. Congratulations on it passing BTW. Anyway a couple of responses:
 * Re unit names I still think this is incorrect. MOS compliance is a key criteria for GA, A and FA. Not really sure what more to say about this (not really relevant as the review passed I admit).
 * You may indeed be correct, as I was unaware of the MOS requirement. If I had known about it from the beginning, I would probably have used that format, just to comply, in the assessment spirit of BE TIMID. My thought at the time I wrote up all those units was that the link would lead to the article bearing the official name. However, I still find it peculiar that no one demands official titles for anything but British units.
 * It is the same book - note the ISBN. Think you are right though Worldcat may actually be in error about the author. The main point I'm trying to make is there is no need to write the volume and the series title twice. I have made this edit now anyway.
 * So two wrongs lead to an essentially meaningless edit.
 * The crux of the issue b/n books and website is that the publishing process usually requires scrutiny of a work by editors, reviewers and academics etc, while publishing on a website does not.
 * Websites with bibliographies (at least in this little niche I write in) are generally based on the very books that have been edited.
 * Anyway all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And somehow, I have fallen into review format, when I only came here to bequeath you a Barnstar.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Cornplanter as a Commander at the Battle of Devil's Hole
Please see my talk note for this article. I am curious if Cornplanter was in the campaignbox before you changed it to an infobox. I couldn't find Cornplanter mentioned in the Devil's Hole article and no mention of the battle on Cornplanter's article. I also checked some external sources - I was unable to find any mention of him being there during the battle. If no record can be found, I will delete him from the infobox. MacEachan1 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)MacEachan1
 * Gday - it might be a cliché but "it was like that when I got there"! Yes Cornplanter was listed there before my edits - pls see the diff . Don't have any real knowledge of the article so I can't cmt on whether this is correct on not. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Guinea Volunteer Rifles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Optimism?
sigh, one day you will realise it doesn't mean anything. - You have more faith in the future of humankind than I do! What drug are you on, and how expensive, and available, is it? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday friend, yes you are probably right. Its alright though because today I'm a pessimist, so it balances out. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
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) 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)
Hi there Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) someone's been shown a new toy. SPEECHLESS to say the least, the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... oh well. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * if the talkpage gets reverted again it might be better to remove the warning templates if they reappear (which patently don't belong there in my opinion) and leave a statement in place of the "disputed" text within your comments - something along the lines of you don't think it's a personal attack but you are being generous and leaving it out because it's a nice day outside or somesuch? It takes two sides to war, 3RR is the last line in the sand not the first, and frankly life's too short etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have struck the cmts now. Thanks for the advice Graeme. Anotherclown (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of cse even that got reverted but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the rules only apply to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

‎Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
Hi Anotherclown, the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is currently undergoing an A-class review at WikiProject Miliary history. Because you have participated in its last ACR in 2011, you are invited to comment on the article and assess whether it is worthy of the A-class status. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - I'll have a look shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed your concerns. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow up: the article is at FAC right now -- your input is welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of full fonts for Vietnamese place names
Hi, greetings, thanks for the message in edit summary left below, but when it says "RFC" this refers to the consensus built up over a series of about a dozen requested move discussions culminating in WP:VN DISTRICT NAMES RFC to restore the use of Vietnamese to Vietnamese article titles.
 * (cur | prev) 11:17, 25 September 2013‎ Anotherclown (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,817 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (rm diacritics) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 11:15, 25 September 2013‎ Anotherclown (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,825 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Anotherclown moved page Núi Đất to Nui Dat over redirect: no consensus for move, no req for diacritics on en wiki per WP:DIACRITICS - pls discuss if you think otherwise) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 09:34, 25 September 2013‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,825 bytes) (0)‎ . . (In ictu oculi moved page Nui Dat to Núi Đất over redirect: RFC) (undo)

That above is re titles. I note that you reverted the Vietnamese text in the info box xã Cẩm Mỹ here, I was a bit surprised, actual use of Vietnamese text within copy has never even been challenged to the best of my knowledge. Do you mind if I put it back? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for your msg. As far as I'm aware there is no consensus on the use of diacritics, and the policy I linked to clearly states they are "neither encouraged nor discouraged", hence no requirement. I think it fairly difficult to support large scale changes across numerous articles on the basis of this. Ultimately it comes down to a question of whether the bulk of the reliable sources present the names in this manner. If so then the policy allows it, if it doesn't then it shouldn't be changed. In my experience though the vast majority of the English language literature that mentions Nui Dat does not use diacritics (mainly sources on the Vietnam War). On a personal note I do not see how adding a lot of additional lines and squiggles to a word is of any benefit to the 99.99% of the readers of en wiki, including me, who have no idea what any of it means. Indeed it is just distracting. Anotherclown (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see your point about the guideline - "neither encouraged nor discouraged", (or the reverse "neither discouraged nor encouraged") means just that. Are you aware that we spell geographic names fully for every other Latin alphabet on en.wp. Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic, etc. All of them, all articles. If you're arguing for the use of 52 character ABCabc fonts you're going up against 1000s of editors of 100,000s of articles. I presume you edit articles outside WikiProject Vietnam, so are you against use of full spelling in every language or just Vietnamese? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I made my point above and have no intention of arguing semantics with you. Like I said there is no requirement in policy, so I object to the large scale changing of article names and text on such a weak basis. This should be done on a case by case basis only. You completely ignored my comment about reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we have had a series of RMs, about 12, and then an RFC, that usually means that editors follow the result, whether they agree with it or not. This means that if you intend to revert edits in line with the RFC you have to discuss your edits.
 * Re "reliable sources" the reason I asked if you are "aware that we spell geographic names fully for every other Latin alphabet on en.wp. Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic, etc. All of them, all articles. " relates to the definition of "reliable sources" in WP:Reliable sources.
 * So again, please, let me ask: Are you aware that we spell geographic names fully for every other Latin alphabet on en.wp. Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic, etc. All of them, all articles? If you please indicate your understanding on this question I'll be able to better discuss why editors interpret "reliable sources" as meaning sources equipped to distinguish, "sources reliable for the statement being made." Please give this question your consideration. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Was unaware of any RFC and have been editing on the basis of the policy I highlighted (WP:DIACRITICS). One would have assumed you might have actually provided the link to the RFC by now if it clears things up (and even included it in the edit summary of your edits). Unless of cse it doesn't actually say what you claim it does, in which case that makes perfect sense. Anotherclown (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I (a) provided the link to the RFC in the first line of this section, and (b) I included the text "RFC" in my edit summary.
 * Sorry, I don't understand "Unless of cse it doesn't actually say what you claim it does, in which case that makes perfect sense." - what makes perfect sense?? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok somehow I missed that, thank you for the link. My reading of that RFC is that its appropriate to use diacritics but not where its established English-language usage doesn't include them. I guess then it is case by case like I said above, rather than being a requirement. On a personal note I have no idea how to make my computer generate such text so I have no idea why Wikipedia editors would want to introduce such a complex formatting requirement. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no "requirement" to use Vietnamese fonts, we have a corpus of about 2,500 WikiProject Vietnam articles - including about 1,000 geo articles, the vast majority stubs of course. Those editors who can use Vietnamese keyboards do, and those who can't don't. But no one owns articles and a non-stub article generating decent editor traffic will eventually have full fonts added to the text, exactly the same way as it works with Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic and so on. Of course normally editors who don't know Turkish, Maltese, Croatian, Icelandic spellings don't revert the editors who do when they add them. As a collegiate process each editor contributes expertise in different areas.
 * I think the main thing to take away from the RFC is that there's a WP:SNOW consensus to treat Vietnamese like every other Latin-alphabet language and distinguish true exonyms from what are only typographical limitations. What that means in effect is going back to your (reasonable) point about "reliable sources." The reality is that reliable sources for dates, facts, numbers may not be reliable for full unicode spellings. For example the 2011 paperback 2nd edition of Spencer Tucker's Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War doesn't use unicode fonts, but the 2001 hardback Oxford University Press 1st edition does Amazon.com LOOK INSIDE. Generally we'd follow the hardback for name spellings because it is "reliable for the statement being made." but in fact the 2nd paperback edition includes revised numbers and expanded sections on many encyclopedia entries. This means the 2nd paperback edition is more "reliable for the statement being made." when it comes to actual facts, dates, numbers.
 * A similar situation to Spencer Tucker exists with David G. Marr. His Vietnam 1945: The Quest for Power was published by University of California Press in 1995 before they had full unicode fonts. The next volume Vietnam: State, War, and Revolution (1945-1946) was published 2013 with full unicode. The two Marr volumes discuss the same people and places - which volume is a more "reliable for the statement being made" if the statement being made is how to spell a Vietnamese name?
 * But again this is why I pointed out that - however "reliable sources" is viewed differently by different editors the actual result - which is more objective, fact yes/no, is that we do use full unicode fonts fully for every other Latin alphabet on en.wp. Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic, etc. That's why I asked the question, since I don't know if your comment relates to Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic, etc as well, or only Vietnamese?
 * Is this making sense? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Those editors who can use Vietnamese keyboards do, and those who can't don't." Hence what I said - no requirement. All you are doing by adding these squiggles is creating inconsistency in articles, some parts of which will use them and the majority of which won't because subsequent editors won't know how to do it (or care to make the effort). Not to mention the confusion that most of our readers will no doubt experience because they don't know what any of it means. Anyway we are clearly talking in circles now, its obvious there is no policy which mandates it, but for some reason you think its important to make these changes. Unless it can be supported by reliable English language sources I think this is fairly nebulous. Anotherclown (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, well on the basis of the RFC I will make changes to district names supported by the RFC. If you wish to overturn the RFC I suggest you contact each of the editors who participated and see if there is any willingness to reopen it.
 * I am still genuinely interested to know whether your objection to use of full unicode fonts applies to all Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic, etc or just Vietnamese. Because if so and you intend to revert Turkish, Maltese, Croatian and Icelandic fonts in articles then this is a larger question than just the Vietnamese RMs and RFC. I would really appreciate knowing the answer - which is why I have asked for your view three times - as I also edit outside Vietnam articles. Cheers and best wishes. 01:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the RFC says you can make these changes against the common usage in English RS though. Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I would really appreciate knowing the answer - which is why I have asked for your view, now four times In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss
Hi again, as I understand it re this WP:BRD means the onus is on the person removing content from an article to open discussion on article Talk page. Am I misreading WP:BRD? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong of cse. You made a bold change, I reverted it, you discuss it if you feel it is still req'd. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just made the same point to In ictu oculi on my talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, likewise. Anotherclown (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Lithgow_Small_Arms_Factory
Edit about electricity supply was part of fixing pages marked as orphans. Info came from other Lithgow pages. 86.128.235.140 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this. Acknowledge your edits were in good faith but the issue is that I didn't (and still don't) believe that the source of the electricity supply for the factory is relevant and because of its trivial nature is probably undue weight per WP:UNDUE. Good to see someone helping to assist building the encyclopedia though and you might be interested in checking out WikiProject Australia or MILHIST for some suggestions of where you might be able to help out if you decide to hang around and continue to edit. If I can answer any questions you might have I would be more than happy for you to ask. Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent back-and-forth at HMAS Otama
As one of the parties involved in the recent back-and-forth at the article HMAS Otama, I invite you to come to the article's talk page and discuss potential ways forward. -- saberwyn 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten FA
Hello, I've nominated Operation Tungsten for FA status. If you have the time to post a review at Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1 I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Nick. Sure, will have a look in a bit. Pls ping me again if I look like I have forgotten. Anotherclown (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons cat box
"move commons cat box to top of EL section" oh bugger, I've done dozens of pages the other way round....Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith. I wouldn't worry about it too much - its just minor formatting which I often waste my time with doing when I see it. Otherwise the Operation Michael article is in excellent shape. BTW I hope I didn't come across as too much of a Burke in our previous conversation but I accept that I sometimes put my point across the wrong way. Anyway I'm sure you are more than capable of handling yourself (and telling me to jump in lake) if need be! All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll alter them piecemeal as I drive-by. I'm still procrastinating over Delville Wood so I've been doing missing citations, the rest of the page is other people's work. I always value your views, especially when I disagree with them. I can be a bit of a berk sometimes too but I know good faith when I see it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

9 Sqn RAAF
G'day, I've been trying to find references for the No. 9 Squadron RAAF article. I wonder if you have anything that could be used to reference the places where I've addd "cn" tags? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Could only fine one I'm afraid. Pretty sure I'd be able to dig up some more but will take a bit more digging than I'm capable of at this hour (and this level of incapacity). Will see if I can find something over the weekend! Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more. Anotherclown (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

help with some maps
Rupert suggested I contact you about a couple of maps I need. These are non-wiki maps, although they will be incorporated into some articles I've done. Basically, my first use is for my dissertation on the impact of the French Revolutionary Wars in s/w Germany 1793-1803.....auntieruth (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday - my skills are a little limited but I might able to do something. Are you able to send me a source map (or a link to one)? If so I could have a look at it and let you know if I think its within the limit of my skills. Depending on how hard they are (and how) many it might take a while too as I am fairly busy at the moment. Willing to have a look though. Anotherclown (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks! :)  I'll send you some links in a bit I've got a couple of maps from a guy on the German wiki, and need help combining them and some others.  Sorry for the delay.  finally got my penultimate draft handed in, so now have a break in the action while my committee reads.  One of the maps is only offline, do you want my email?  ruthann001  the rest is gmail.  auntieruth (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * if you're really swamped, I think Spoolwhippet can help too.... deadline is 11/15.

this is basic map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Autriche_ant%C3%A9rieure.png I have a version of it without the borders, but need (1) Scale (miles to inch/km to inch) added (2) Ueberlingen imperial city borders added. Second map needs to have troop movements from 1796 added. Third map needs troop movements from 1799-1800 added. Fourth map needs to show battles from those 2 campaigns added. I think they can all be built on the same map basis. Also need a larger map showing location of city in broader context (with distances from Zurich, Basel) Does this make sense? you can email me directly if you want to. auntieruth (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am truly sorry to disappoint you as you have helped me in the past but I've now had to go interstate on a training cse for the next 3 weeks so will probably be fairly limited in my work on wiki depending on my commitments here. I had a look at the link nonetheless and fear it probably is beyond my capabilities at any rate... I really am just a hack when it comes to svg graphics, cut and paste, some squiggles and lines, etc, that's all. If SpoolWhippets can help I would go with them as I believe he may be a professional in this field. Best wishes. Anotherclown (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! :)  good luck on your training case.  auntieruth (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nos. 13 and 450 Squadrons
G'day, mate, I've been doing some work on Nos. 13 and 450 Squadrons RAAF, but can't find refs for everything. I think you said you have the RAAF Historical Section sources. Would you mind taking a look through them and adding some refs if you get some free time? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Added what I could - not as much as I thought I'd have though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Got a couple more. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Beersheba (1917) site
I see you are one of the contributors to the Battle of Beersheba (1917) site. What a biased presentation of this episode – you should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.227.39.120 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Complaint department is on the roof. I'm not the main contributor to that article, so suggest you discuss your concerns with them. Anotherclown (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
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) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

First Indochina War
I don't have any skin in the game. I reverted the anon only because it was an open proxy, which I've since blocked from editing. --GraemeL (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - that seems reasonable. Anotherclown (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment
I'm sorry that my responses at the A class review have offended you. I can see that my replies may have looked arrogant, but to me they were just stating the MoS and FA criteria as I see them (I appreciate that Milhist may have different guidelines, but I'm the new boy here). Ironically, I usually do put locations in.

I don't expect you to continue with the review, I just don't like to leave more ill-feeling than is necessary. Thanks anyway for taking a look at the article in the first place,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim. Thank you for taking the time to clear the air, for my part I will try to take myself less seriously. Will stop by the review in a few days and see how it is going. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that, I've started reviewing a Milhist FAC to show my appreciation of the help from the project.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Shinano FAC
As one of the article's A-class reviewers, I'd appreciate if you could take some time and decide if the article meets the FA criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Guinea Volunteer Rifles
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Guinea Volunteer Rifles you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Tomobe03 -- 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Guinea Volunteer Rifles
The article New Guinea Volunteer Rifles you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Guinea Volunteer Rifles for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

New Guinea Volunteer Rifles
Hi! Would changing citation style in the notes of the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles to match the rest of the article (i.e. inline) be worthwhile addition? Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Guinea Volunteer Rifles
The article New Guinea Volunteer Rifles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Guinea Volunteer Rifles for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 11:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got my kit!
I've signed up, it remains to be seen how active I will be. Only previous historical FA was a Norfolk church, and only previous milhist ventures were sections on wartime defences on a couple of nature reserves in Norfolk. What I really need is another local obscure castle... Thanks for the invite anyway  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll look and see if the coastal defences in Norfolk merit an FA, assuming I can find suitable sources  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! We are always looking out for high qlty editors to join the project and would be grateful however you find yourself able to contribute. The coastal defences article sounds really interesting - a similar article (by a now sadly inactive mbr) of the project that I always found fascinating was Hobart coastal defences. Best regards. Anotherclown (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Harry Chauvel
Just wanting to clear up something that's just occurred to me. On first mention, are we supposed to use the full name? --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure to be honest - I don't recall seeing anything in the MOS but haven't really looked for that specifically. I have noticed that some (many / most though again I'm not sure) articles that use COMMONNAME as the article title will use the full name in the lead, which makes sense to me as that would have legally / officially been their name and is certainly relevant detail. Would suggest checking the MOS yourself though just to be sure. Anotherclown (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have done such a great job making them all Harry Chauvel, and I know that Jim Sweeney has often picked me up on full name on first mention. So I just thought, well, ok. But I'm not sure where to check, its all so huge and confusing. --Rskp (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I think I understand your question a bit better now. I was talking about the biography of the individual subject but you are talking about the first time a name is mentioned in any article. In both instances I do believe WP:COMMONNAME applies (both for the article name and for a wikilink to it). It is a requirement to use the full title and name (i.e. rank first name and surname) at first mention under WP:SURNAME but I believe this is compatible with COMMONNAME. Subsequent mentions are just by surname. In the biography of the subject I agree that the full name should be introduced (although exactly where I'm not sure, probably in the first sentence of the lead, but this needs to be checked, pls do not rely on my advice here). Does this make more sense? Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, yes, I was talking about any article which mentioned him. Regarding the Australian Light Horse where you changed the Anzac Mounted Division. As it was first mentioned in that fashion, I think its been agreed that as both styles are fairly equally correct, that the original style would be kept. --Rskp (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday - re the ANZAC / Anzac issue like AR I'm not particularly wedded to either (and there are definitely arguments in favor of the latter I agree). Currently the consensus at Talk: ANZAC Mounted Division is against moving that article so think it would be wise to just try and forget about the issue in the interests of your own sanity. Reason for the revert is that it seemed to be part of the previous pattern of editing plus the fact that your edit changed the wikilink to a name other than that used by the article. I am quite happy with either being adopted as long as its consistent within the article, doesn't break any wikilinks, and is true to the original style adopted by the article (i.e. we don't go and make changes to the format in any article as it currently stands) unless community consensus changes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Anotherclown. Will you be changing the article back, to reflect its original style? --Rskp (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I'm not sure I see any benefit in doing that. For better or worse the article as it stands now reflects the current consensus on the name of the division, so changing back to the opposite would now seem contrary to that. Equally, whilst my opinion is that the terms are interchangeable, given the current consensus others may not agree with me. I do think it would be best to let sleeping dogs lie and try and adopt a status quo ante bellum approach by leaving everything the way it is and moving on to more important things. Anotherclown (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for that. However, in order to follow the status quo ante bellum approach, you would need to change the name of the division back, to its original state. Could you please see your way to doing that? --Rskp (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting from my post above "...For better or worse the article as it stands now reflects the current consensus on the name of the division, so changing back to the opposite would now seem contrary to that." Long story short - no. Really don't see how this is an issue and suggest making any changes in this area is pointless and just likely to result in the resumption of hostilities. I for one do not intend to. That is all I'm going to say on this issue. Happy to discuss something else if you like though. Anotherclown (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne Castle
Thanks for your invaluable help in getting Melbourne Castle to A-class. Just to let you know I've now thrown it to the wolves at FAC.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday again. Yes it can be a bit like that - I've actually never nominated an article I've worked on for FA (although done a few GAs and As) and a few reviews at FA. Best of luck, might stop in and have a look at some point and see if I can assist. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A-class is near enough to FA that it shouldn't take much to get it through. The only potential problem that occasionally arises is that some things that might be taken for granted in this project might need more explanation for the wider audience, as with this current candidate  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link - that's a little disappointing. As one of the reviewers of the Jethro Sumner article at ACR I think I might have done Cdtew a disservice but not picking up some of those issues before it got to FAC. Will have to challenge my own assumed knowledge when reviewing (and writing) articles in the future I think. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No. 455 Squadron RAAF
G'day, unfortunately I had to return my copies of Eather and Barnes to the library, so I can't do much more on No. 455 Squadron RAAF, but I wonder if you have a source that might used to expand it enough to take it to B class? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Should do - home on the 14th so ping me then if I look like I have forgotten. Anotherclown (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget this ever again
What right do you have to look forward to bacon and eggs tomorrow when so many others saw only pain and brutal death in their future (or worse fear and failure)? Men you knew, men you lived with and shared your life with, men who gave you everything they had. "So no nippers for Guy". Drink it down, you stupid clown. One day you'll wish you hadn't. But by then you'll be old and foolish and no one will listen to you. Anotherclown (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli or question for any Aussie stalkers
Hi or should I say G'Day after your sterling efforts with the Gallipoli Campaign. I was wondering if you or any of the other Australian editors had plans to work on the rest of the campaign articles. There's just about time to get them to a Good Topic, if not better, for the 100th anniversary and Gallipoli always seems to cause more feeling/passion for Aussies than us Poms. Secondly have you ever heard/read about this User talk:Jim Sweeney/sandbox. It does not seem to fit in with any of the established "battle of" articles and if I could find more about it in reliable sources etc it may evolve into its own article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim. I don't currently have plans to do any further work in this area as I'm currently working on a couple of other projects and have fairly limited free time due to work commitments. It would be great to see the area developed into a Good Topic in time for the 100th anniversary though and I'm excited to see you working on the NZ mounted units (which have been neglected until now). Unfortunately my sources on Kiwi involvement in the Gallipoli Campaign are quite limited and I can't find anything specifically related to the Defence of No. 3 Post in Travers or Carlyon. It appears to have been given only very limited coverage in Bean The Story of Anzac, Volume II, pp. 191-192 if that helps at all. I would imagine works more focused on the Kiwis though would cover it in much more depth though. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
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) 06:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Army Veterinary Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know your name has been brought up in this one. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold for A Class review
Hello, Anotherclown,

Because of your prior interest in a similar article, you are being invited to review Rudolf Berthold.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute
Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note that the first link in your evidence is not a read-only (could say "proper") diff but links to an edit-style page (which doesn't show who made the edit). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out - I think I have fixed this now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NORFORCE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Something else
Looking at my wife asleep on the couch, so peaceful—her face so soft and sweet, seemingly innocent and unable to comprehend. Grateful she hasn’t seen what I have and doesn’t know the things I do (because I won’t tell her)—the moments of uncertainty, the things I was once proud of and now ultimately the shame and regret, the guilt of having survived and prospered without right—and then I realise two things:


 * she has seen her own horrors and faced her own hardships and pain (even if they aren’t things that I would consider hard); and
 * the certainty that she and everyone else I care about will again.

Despite our best intentions and our own sacrifices we can’t stop those we love from facing such things. Our parents couldn’t keep us from our fate—or perhaps they caused it through their own inevitable failure. How can we be any different? And why do we continue? Conditioned by nature to carry on without hope, to reproduce in order to perpetuate the species, but ultimately to condemn another soul to life. Each so unique and priceless, but ultimately so fleeting.

So cruel and unfair then the lives of man. Some have nothing and are expected to give everything, some have everything and give nothing, and most of us somewhere in between (but only in the late 20th / early 21st century). Whatever we have though, it hurts when we lose it. Students of history, but blind to its lessons. Too dumb to comprehend the world we exist in, but too smart to realise it (except when we have been drinking...). Yet still too self aware for our own good.

And yet perhaps we aren’t done giving... So easy to sit here in self loathing and think we are done, but maybe the worst is yet to come? Indeed there will come a time when it is not us that must face the world but our children—alone and without comfort, cold, wet, hungry, tired and in fear, their future and perhaps those of others in their hands—just as we had to but without us to protect them, or perhaps damaged by us, what will they face? We hope we will have prepared them to be harder, smarter and better than us, but what if we haven’t? What if we are so consumed by ourselves that we neglect to teach our children the things they need to learn? Or if we are too soft on them? Or too hard? Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
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) 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586592756 your edit] to Australian Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * wearing the Disruptive Pattern Combat Uniform (DPCU) alongside Afghan soldiers, April 2010

Decision proposed in Ottoman naming dispute
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK  [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VC 275th Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Svay Rieng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday. Thanks for that - happy holidays / Merry Christmas. Anotherclown (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)



Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks friend. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Christmas
Happy Christmas and thank you for the nomination. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, all the best Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny thing I was going to nominate you, but you beat me to it and I was worried about being in "lock step". Just glad someone else put you forward. On another note I have just posted a question on Australian Ruperts talk you may be able to answer. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all - cmt'd there. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
I am looking for reviewers for Featured article candidates/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project/archive1. If you could take a look, it would be much appreciated. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, will do. Anotherclown (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)