User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 11

Thank you

 * Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Heads up
Just in case you were waiting for a reply at the Jordan Valley article Rskp is blocked for two weeks and topic banned. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday Jim - thanks for letting me know... I noticed that just after I posted the cmt. Have to admit I haven't really been following it too closely. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

German occupation of Belgium during World War II
Hi Anotherclown, all your concerns *should* have been addressed or fixed in your GAR for German occupation of Belgium during World War II GAR. I'm sorry for the delay! Brigade Piron (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anotherclown, I think I've made all the changes requested...Brigade Piron (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks Jim - you taught me something too. Will enjoy it watching the highlights of the cricket! Anotherclown (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Next time I hear they intend sending out the real team!!! Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, yeah. I won't rub it in too much though - the Australians were pretty lucky to win 5-0 and certainly would not have done so well against better opposition (could have easily been 2-2 or 3-2). Anyway they will probably have a relapse pretty soon (i.e. against South Africa in February) so I'm going to enjoy it will it lasts. All the best Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

 * Thanks AR. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Battle of Gaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First (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) 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks Ed. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 42nd Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Buna, Enoggera and Morobe


 * 2/21st Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ambon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sinclair, To Find A Path
Have both volumes here, being remainded from a library. How good is your access to these two vols at the moment? Would you like to have them? use them in expanding the RPIR article? Regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday Buckshot. This is uncanny as I am currently (very slowly) working on a few of the PIB, PIR, NGIB articles off line. I actually own hardcopies of both volumes of To Find A Path (and Byrnes Green Shadows) so I should be set. I very much appreciate the offer though. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The URAA game...
Given the amount of hide and seek we both have to play due to URAA, I though I own you a fair warning in case another copyright blitz is coming our way. Technically is  (or at least taken by the same guy within few seconds a part), so PLA Daily is still the copyright owner of both photos. All it take is some Chinese Wikipedia Admin on a power binge and the same photo will be removed again. Jim101 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ack - you could be right. I assumed that as it was on Commons (and from a different source) it should be ok. Will leave it up to Commons to sort out if and when that occurs. Seems the goal posts keep changing with this stuff. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Strachwitz review
Quick question, are there further issues for me to address or are you done with the review? Thanks for your suggestions so far. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday - sorry meant to reply earlier. I've still got my concerns about the duplication of information in the "Personal life" section but want to see what other reviewers make of it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the duplication and integrated the info into the flow of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion on the article as it stands now? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Question at WT:MILHIST
Hi there. I left some questions and comments at the WT:MILHIST section on the backlog drive. As you were the co-ordinator who started that section, I thought it best to ping you, but I'm not sure if the notification worked. I'm putting aside time this weekend to help out with the backlog drive, but was hoping there would be a suitable place to brainstorm ideas about co-ordination or simply stats gathering and showcasing work done in the WWI topic area. That's why I suggested on the co-ordinators page the idea of following up on the idea to re-activate the task force talk page, but things have gone a bit quiet there. One idea I did have was pooling library resources. What I was thinking of was something along the lines of what I have in my userspace here under the 'Library' heading. Does a centralised resource for editors wishing to ask about or consult such books already exist somewhere in MILHIST? I remember seeing one for military history in general, but not sure if there is one specifically for the WWI topic area (for which there are tens of thousands of books and other sources, but you have to start somewhere). Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday - sorry I'm not ignoring you. Just been very busy this week. Will try to have a look at the discussion shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

ANZAC landing
Thanks for the edits, what do you think about the Anzac Day section. All I know about it is whats on the web, I think the length is about right but was concerned about the accuracy.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday Jim. That section looks fine to me as a summary. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
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) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leslie Maygar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (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) 08:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: HMAS Berrima

 * Boom! Like magic -- saberwyn 04:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing that. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Keith Payne
Good work! Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC) -- (BTW: What's a "PIR"?)
 * Gday no worries at all - it caught my interest and I had a little bit of free time for once (very busy at the moment with work). PIR is the abbreviation for Pacific Islands Regiment (which consisted of 2 battalions). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories
Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I agree merging makes sense and have added my cmt to the discussion. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Remote area battalions
G'day, mate. Wondering if you can look something up for me? I've found a journal article that very briefly mentions six remote area battalions being raised in the CMF in 1966 as part of the national service scheme: 49 RQR, 19 RNSWR, 22 RVR, 43 RSAR, 28RWAR and 50 RTR. Unfortunately, the article doesn't provide dates of when they disbanded. I have info on 19 RNSWR, 49 RQR and 28 RWAR (and already added that to their wiki articles), but the others are a surprise to me. I'd like to update their articles, but need some more information. From Google Books, I think Palazzo's The Australian Army: A History of its Organization has something on p. 278. Would you mind looking this up for me in your copy? Dayton McCarthy's book The Once and Future Army, might also have something if you have a copy. Incidently, I've just finished a draft of the 28th Battalion article, which in theory should be the last to take to B-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi mate. Yeah found a bit.
 * Palazzo The Australian Army (2001), p. 278:
 * "Although the report's conclusion were not overly enthusiastic, they resulted in the raising of special CMF units, which became known as 'special condition battalions' or the 'Bushmen's Rifles'. In 1966, the Army authorized the formation of one special condition battalion in each command. Their designations were:
 * Northern Command: 49 RQR
 * Eastern Command: 19 RNSWR
 * Southern Command: 22 RVR
 * Central Command: 43 RSAR
 * Western Command: 28 RWAR
 * Tasmanian Command: 50 RTR.
 * The units drew their personnel from throughout the State, and did not have any particular local affiliation. The army did not require the members of these units to attend night parades or weekend bivouacs. Instead, the service condition provided concentrated training in either in a single 33-day camp or two camps of 16 and 17 days. This training cycle removed the need for a recruit to live near a CMF centre, and thereby made citizen force membership again possible for those who lived in the country's more remote areas. Tasmanian Command never raised its battalion, although it did enlist approximately 60 special-condition soldiers. Instead of serving with 50 RTR, the Tasmanians were allocated by the army to 22 RVR." More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

From Festberg:
 * "19th (Remote Area) Battalion raised September, 1966" (page 27)
 * "22nd (Remote Area) Battalion (22 RVR) raised September, 1966" (page 29)
 * "28th (Remote Area) Battalion (2 RWAR) raised September, 1966" (page 32)
 * "43rd (Remote Area) Battalion (43 RSAR) raised September, 1966" (page 31)
 * "49th (Remote Area) Battalion (49 RQR) raised September, 1966" (page 26)
 * "51st (Remote Area) Battalion (51 RTR) authorized but not yet raised" (page 33). More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * From McCarthy, The Once and Future Army, p. 145:
 * "The board envisaged the raising of one special CMF infantry battalion per command, with the emphasis on officer production. To this end, the Officer Training Group in each state would be responsible for the headquarters (including the ARA cadre) of these units, and all training was to be conducted at Regular Army bases for administrative ease and for the opportunity for the army to provide maximum assistance during camp periods. With the training centralized, these units were to have an annual training obligation of thirty-three days, comprising two full-time camps (with the opportunity of up to sixty days a year). The board hoped that a CMF soldier in these units would reach the standard of a fully trained infantryman in three years. Although the volunteer CMF officer potential was a factor, the board made it quite clear that the 'overriding consideration was the political implications arising form the provision of CMF service as an alternative to National Service'. It was decided that to qualify for service in these units, a man had to reside more than twenty-five miles from a CMF depot or be precluded from attending normal CMF training by the nature of his occupation. Over time, these units became known colloquially as the 'Bushmen's Rifles', and each battalion was raised as part of one of the state regiments. The 'Bushmen's Rifles' units were 49 RQR, 19 RNSWR, 22 RVR, 43 RSAR and 28 RWAR." More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Further:
 * 22 RVR amalgamated with 2 RVR in 1974 as part of major restructure of the CMF which saw 17 major and 224 minor units amalgamated by 30 June 1975 (Palazzo, pp. 299-301)
 * "The Army gave the three CMF infantry battalions in South Australia (10th RSAR, 27th RSAR, and 43rd RSAR) a chance to improve their strength, but they remained too feeble to serve individually as efficient units. Hassett then recommended their amalgamation into a single battalion - 10th RSAR." (Palazzo, p. 301) No date state though. Will see what else I can find. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This last part doesn't really gel with what we have here though: Royal South Australia Regiment. According to this the 10 and 27th Battalion continued to exist until 1987 when they were merged, and implies (speculates) that 43 RSAR was disbanded at that time. I cant find anything to support this so far. Anotherclown (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kuring, p. 362: "In 1966, five 'special conditions' CMF infantry battalion known unofficially as 'Bushmen's Rifles' were established to cater for the part-time service needs of farmers, teachers, students and other careers or jobs where seasonal requirements placed limitations on military services at particular times of the year."
 * Further: Table 22 Infantry Battalions and Units of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, 1970, in Kuring, pp. 365-366 lists the fol battalions of the RSAR:
 * 10th Battalion
 * 27th Battalion
 * 43rd Battalion. (so all we know here is that all three existed in 1970).
 * Yet Table 23 Infantry Battalions and Units of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, 1980, in Kuring, pp. 442 lists 10 RSAR as the only South Australian battalion on the ORBAT (so at some point between 1970 and 1980 all three were merged it seems).
 * Table 24 Infantry Battalions and Units of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, 2001, in Kuring, pp. 443 lists 10/27 RSAR (so a some point between 1980 and 2001 10 and 27 Bn were merged).
 * No further mention of 43 RSAR. Sorry I know this doesn't help. Bugger. Anotherclown (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A few refs suggesting linking of 10 and 27 Bn on 29 Nov 1987 . Still none the wiser about the disbanding of 43 RSAR. Anotherclown (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW note the ref above to Festberg which says 51 RTR (not 50 RTR). I didn't realize this until now so rechecked it and he does indeed say 51 RTR. Probably a typo as every other source so 50 RTR that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I reckon it's a typo. Re the 43rd, I reckon it was probably disbanded in 1974-75, but without a ref/something definitive I went for something generic. Thanks for looking this up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian Forces in Mediterranean during WW2
Hi Another clown, Please try to understand that the bulk of the Axis forces in North Africa were Italian, not German. Most of the bombing of Malta was done by the Italian air-force, not the German. I urge you to read trained historians like Sadkovich. Understanding Defeat: Reappraising Italy's Role in World War II Author(s): James J. Sadkovich Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 27-61Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260699. For too long now, Italian involvement in the Mediterranean has been over-shadowed by biased reporting by pseudo-historians. I can only repeat what I have said: that the bulk of the Axis forces in the Mediterranean were Italian, and NOT German. For example, Sadkovich writes: "Although the Italians failed to break through the Greek lines in Albania, they helped to assure victory for the twenty-nine German divisions deployed against Greece and Yugoslavia in April 1941 by pinning down fourteen Greek divisions and diverting a number of Yugoslav divisions. The Greek refusal to shorten their lines by 'retreating' on the Italian front allowed the Germans to outflank the three garrison divisions in the Metaxas Line and then scatter the three Greek and two ANZAC divisions deployed along the Aliakhmon River. In effect, the Italians had served as the anvil for the German hammer.47 It is thus simplistic to consider the Greek campaign as an Italian debacle and a brilliant German success." The Italian Army pinned down the bulk of the Greek Army, allowing the Germans an easy victory!!! But as it stands, this Wiki article is unacceptable and is inherently misleading. The Italian contribution in the Mediterranean should be acknowledged and portrayed realistically and fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC) AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that Italian forces numerically made up the bulk of Axis forces in North Africa is not in dispute, but it is only one aspect of the changes you made. Regardless, I dispute your interpretation of the significance of that fact at any rate. Additionally your edits covered the Italian invasion of France (which you stated was "successful") and claimed that Italian forces somehow overran most of Yugoslavia and Greece, neither of which is supported by any source. Indeed the performance of Italian forces in France was poor despite their significant numerical advantage and proved an embarrassment to Mussolini, while the Germans were largely forced to come to the assistance of the Italians in Greece after their attacks there also failed. Other issues I have with your edits is that you changed the meaning of existing quoted / cited material. Of course this article is not complete and can be improved, but care needs to be taken in how this occurs. If you wish to make changes (and I personally do not have an issue with the fact of the Italians making up the bulk of Axis forces being added) you should start a discussion on the article's talk page proposing your changes and providing sources which support them. This can then be discussed and (hopefully) a consensus reached, after which the article can be amended. Anotherclown (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do. The Italian contribution to the Mediterranean has been much maligned and unfairly portrayed. It needs a review and some open thinking here. I suspect there has been an element of ingrained prejudice towards the Italians that needs to be rectified as well. Many of the authors quoted have tended to dismiss the Italian armed forces too quickly and too readily because they have largely swallowed British wartime propaganda hook, line and sinker. I'll get back to you with my proposals and then see what we can do to make this article more balanced.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Rogers (VC), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain and 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) 08:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

 * Thanks AR. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Anotherclown thanks for inviting me to join MILHIST but my interest in Tom Mills was that he was an Old Newingtonian and I really don't know much about military History. For that reason I hope someone will improve his bio in that area. Castlemate (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries - all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Special Air Service Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (military) (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) 08:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

 * I'd endorse this completely, especially in regards to your excellent work on the SAS Regiment article. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gents. Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Martlet review
Thanks Another, I'd only done drive-by citing, which turned out to be a bit sloppy. Are you familiar with Zetterling ? There's no Home page for the website (except a dead one) so I've added an arbitrary url to the bibliographical details, will this be sufficient? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith. I think I managed to track down an archive of the main page through the Wayback Machine. Is this it - ? Anotherclown (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes

does it go like this? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that looks right to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That'll teach me to web search for two hours, before asking someone who knows something....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What with my inability to assess articles without rewriting them by mistake, I've been making a list of milhist articles short of refs and citations. I've used my sources to clean up B1, hence the eclectic nature of this year's assessment requests. Several branches of the Gallipoli page (Sari Bair, The Nek etc) are short of references; do you know if anyone plans to work on them? If not are there any articles you might want me to look at for B1 improvements? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again Keith. Always good to see references being added that's for sure. Not sure about anyone else but I don't have any plans in this field at the moment. I know User:Jim Sweeney and User:AustralianRupert have done some work in this area in the past but not sure what their current priorities are. Pretty sure AR is snowed under with work and nappies ATM at any rate. Not sure what sources you have but I wonder if you have anything which might improve Landing at Cape Helles? Ironically it took a Brit to get Landing at Anzac Cove up to scratch but Cape Helles seems to be languishing and is an important part of the history of the campaign which always gets overlooked down here. Anyway just a suggestion. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look in the OHKeith-264 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith-264/sandbox4 as I'm doing my usual and adding detail, then moving a section to the article page. The OH isn't bad but I forgot to check the RAF and RN histories until last night. I was glad to see the citation about the Dubliners as I'd failed to find one. Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Massive improvement so far. No worries about the Dubliners ref - it was something that I managed to track down last year for the Gallipoli Campaign article. A truly awful statistic though. Anotherclown (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Eythenkew! I've put urls for the OH's onto the Gallipoli page too, as I found them on Archives org. Martlet is standing over as I'm waiting on a request for info from AHF about the 50th Division. Even d'Este is quiet about it. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done all but some finishing touches to the Landing at Cape Helles but it cries out for an Ottoman source. Oglander and Travers give them a mention but it isn't enough.Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't help with the Ottoman source as my library is fairly limited in this area. I managed to track down a few refs for the last uncited material for the Munsters and Dubliners. Any plans to take the article to GA? Would be good to have in the lead up to the 100th anniversary next year. Anotherclown (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really, it's not my field and I've got about five articles standing over, which I really need to pull my finger out on. I'm a little sceptical of the casualties section in the infobox, I think it may be Allied losses for the day and include Z Beach (Anzac Cove) and Kum Kale. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, its a big improvement now anyway. Will see if I can find anything about the casualties in the infobox. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I may add something to the Main Force sections once I've had another look as I've been bitting and bobbing for the last few days.Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Special Air Service Regiment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Special Air Service Regiment 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Special Air Service Regiment
The article Special Air Service Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Special Air Service Regiment 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) 12:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Special Air Service Regiment
Hi, congratulations on the recent GA. I have nominated it for DYK here, alternative hooks are welcome. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 18:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday Matty.007 thank you for your efforts here, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2/27th Battalion
Hi mate, wondering if you have anything that could be added to the 2/27th Battalion (Australia) article? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Crete
I know that you edited my revision on the Battle of Crete. However, it claims that the German Forces won a Pyrrhic Victory ("a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat.") If the Germans had such a victory than why would they have about 3 times less casualties than the British? Please try to investigate on what was going on on Crete at the battle. Thanks, Spacedude3000
 * As far as I can see those figures are referenced in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
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) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Special Air Service Regiment
Cas Liber (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=614723703 your edit] to Royal Australian Regiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (West)]] (OBG(W)). The fifth battle group to serve in Iraq was based on 5 RAR, by which time OBG(W) operated in both the Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar Governorates as a part of the British Multi-National

Somali Armed Forces
As background to my discussion on the Somali Armed Forces talkpage, you may be interested to examine Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, which has now been closed (as well as Talk:Somali Civil War and Talk:Somali Armed Forces). I have been directed to RfC-U. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)