User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 8

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher: ACR Assessment
Anotherclown,

I've made the changes. With the field craft, I've left it the way it was in the article since it would make Fisher had done nothing while he was in America. Would appreciate if you could take a look at it and assess it. Adamdaley (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday, done now. Will have another look once Ed's and Ian's points have been addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

2/18th Battalion
G'day mate, I'm currently working to expand the 2/18th Battalion (Australia) article and have a question about its authorised strength. When I got to the article, there was a strength of 1,227 men listed, with a reference that doesn't seem to mention that. I've left it in at the moment because I'm hoping the battalion history (which I will order from DLS next week) might confirm/deny, but I wonder if any of your sources might do this. Would you mind looking at Palazzo and or Kuring and seeing if they talk about authorised strength of infantry battalions in 1940? I know that at the start of the war Australian infantry battalions were larger than the British establishment of 903 men, and that when the 6th Division deployed to the Middle East each battalion was reduced to 903 men, but my source (Palazzo - Organising for Jungle Warfare) doesn't say what they were reduced from. Also, I wonder if you have a dead tree source for the structure of an infantry battalion in 1940-41 - e.g. four rifle companies, hq coy with support platoons etc. I've referenced the AWM in the article, but I'd prefer a paper source if you've got one. Anyway, hope you are having a relaxing weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Morning. Kuring p 464 has a wire diagram of an "Infantry Battalion, Middle East - 1941" listing:
 * Battalion HQ (strength not listed)
 * 4 x Rifle Companies (5 Offr, 119 OR)
 * Company HQ (2 Offr, 5 OR)
 * 3 x Rifle Platoons (1 Offr, 38 OR)
 * PHQ (1 Offr, 5 OR)
 * 3 x Rifle Sections (11 ORs)
 * Headquarters Company
 * Company HQ (1 Offr, 7 OR)
 * Signal Pl (1 Offr, 36 OR)
 * Anti-Air Platoon (1 Offr, 16 OR)
 * Mortar Platoon (2 Offr, 35 OR)
 * Carrier Platoon (2 Offr, 35 OR)
 * Pioneer Platoon (1 Offr, 21 OR)
 * Admin Platoon (strength not listed)
 * Unfortunatly there is no entry for 1940, while the corresponding entry for 1939 has 3 x Rifle Coys and a Support Coy with a HQ Wing (see Kuring p. 493). Kuring Appendix 4 pp 480-484 has a series of notes about the organisation of Infantry Bns. The entry for WW2 is extracted as fol:
 * "The Australian infantry battalion organisation in 1939 was structure around three rifle companies, each of four platoons, a headquarters wing and a support company of three medium machine gun platoons and a mortar platoon." p. 481
 * "The Australian infantry battalions sent to the Middle East were reorganised along British Army lines (as previously described)." p. 482.
 * "During the transistion from open warefare in the Middle East to jungle warfare in the South-West Pacific the organisation of the infantry battalion was modified to make it smaller and lighter, by removing some heavy weapons and most vehicles. The rifle company organisatipons stayed much the same, however, modifications were made to the organisation and types of specialist platoons in support company, such as removing the tracked carriers, trucks and anti-aircraft platoon..." p. 481
 * "Towards the end of the war, the headquarters company took over most of the infantyr battalion's administrative functions with quartermaster, transport and medical platoons - these functions had previously been carried out from withing battalion headqurters the administration platoon of headquarters company. The establishment strenght of wartime infantry battalions varied from 700 to just over 900 men." p. 482
 * Palazzo seems silent on the issue altogether.
 * Anyway its not much but I hope it helps somehow. Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. I will see what the battalion history says about the 1,227 figure and then may be add in Kuring as a ref for the four companies. I might get Kuring from the library again, too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Anotherclown (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I went for the generic. If you get a chance, please take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Korean War clean up
Hi, I have been going over some of your early works and found out that you sometimes labelled a Chinese Army (Jun) unit as a Field Army (Ye Jun) unit. Actually in reality a Chinese Field Army is two levels above Chinese Army in unit hierarchy (think NATO Corps vs. NATO Army Group). The mistake is understandable given that both PRC and ROC never followed Western terminology in unit naming (PLA even use the term "Army Group" to label three different unit formations :D). I will start to clean up the mistake where applicable. Jim101 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Dank
Siince you're doing an incredible amount of work at A-class ... thoughts? I don't want to burden you or anyone else. (Respond there please.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added "and" to my last comment in that conversation at A-class ... want to make sure you know I didn't mean you :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, maintaining our standards as a project is a worthy goal. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Tan
G'day, had another quick look at Long Tan tonight. I found a couple of citation errors:


 * "McAulay 1986" in the short citations, but no McAulay 1986 in the References;
 * "Breen 1988" in short citations, but no Breen 1988 in the References;
 * "Anderson 2002" in short citations, but in the References "Andersen 2002";

If you get a chance, can you adjust as required? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. One of those errors was replicated in a number of articles dating back quite a while so I fixed those too. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Have a good one. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To Another Clown:

Your removed the MC from Harry Smith's Medals but left the 1962 BGSM there, which should be the 1918-62 GSM for service in Malaya 19555-57. Harry Smith was awarded the SG in the 2008 Review and initially was required to hand in his MC, but the protocol was that the MC was awarded under the Imperial System by HM The Queen in 1966, gazetted 1967. In the EOWL REview in 1997 several people were awarded second awards, the second from the Australian Contemporary Awards system 1991. The ALP Govt in August 2008 discovered that unless the MC was de-gazetted in london, Harry Smith was entitled to retain the MC as well as the SG. Other precedent is WW1 where some Australian soldiers awarded the MM were upgraded to the MM when it was minted in March 1916 and given approval to retain and wear both awards. Thus, while it is not normal to have two awards for the same Battle, they are two awards from two different systems. Therefore unless all similar recipients have their second award de-gazetted, Harry Smith is entitled to retain and wear both. He is addressed as SG MC by most senior officers in Canberra. That is the protocol. You should be kind enough to reinsert the MC, and change the BGSM 1962 to the GSM. How people can write and comment on these matters is unethical.121.222.56.21 (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats the internet for you I guess. Anyway the only way forward is to provide some reference for your claim - happy to revist if you can support with a reliable source as the edit I made was based on the best information available (not speculation) which states he was required to hand it back (as you yourself acknowledge above). Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To Another Clown: Further to the 2008 Long Tan Review Report, which denied the GRVN unit Citation offered to D Coy 6RAR in 1967, the new ALP Govt approved the GRVN CGCP under Legislation "Proof of offer" and rescinded the requirement for Harry Smith, Geoff Kendall and Dave Sabben to hand in Imperial Awards in order to accept the upgraded Contemporary Awards. The requirement was in fact illegal unless the Imperial Awards were de-gazetted by HM in London, and would have had to also apply to several people in the 1998 EOWL Review. Advice of the GRVN CGCP and the upgraded Medals is contained in a Letter from Senator the Hon John Faulkner, Special Minister of State, Cabinet Secretary dated 11 August 2008. Harry Smith and Dave Sabben had rejected the upgraded awards unless the awards for their soldiers were also approved. The Canberra response (Minister DVA) was that the recipients should accept the offer as the soldiers' awards would be approved by the new 2009 DHAT Review, which then approved a UCG, but not the individual awards for eleven men of A Coy, D Coy and the APC Troop, which are now to be reconsidered by the DHAT Valour Enquiry Part 2, said 2012. But as Part 1 (Thirteen VCs, mainly RAN) has not yet been reported, Part 2 is obviously deferred to 2013. Minister DVA 2008 Alan Griffin MP persuaded the three officers to accept their Contemporary upgrades as "they added lustre" to the Company Battle. Two former Officers still said they would not hand in Imperial Awards to accept upgrades, and that led to the ALP Govt rescinding the illegal 2008 Review requirement. Medals protocol "experts" say there is precedent for the recipients to thus wear two awards from two different awards systems unless the 1966 Imperial awards are de-gazetted in London. It is said by many observers that if the late Brig OD Jackson can retain a DSO for "his able personal direction of the Battle" based on a citation tantamount to perjury, and be said "to have fought in the Battle" (in his Scots College Obituary) and similar for CO6RAR, who is said to have taken over and commanded 6RAR and fought an enemy regiment, and that "his personal presence and calm control inspired confidence in all ranks, enabling a defeat of the enemy regiment" (GRVN CG Citation on file)then no one would suggest that D Coy Officers should be required to hand in Imperial Awards they had worn for 42 years to accept trinket type awards of the 1991 System. Harry Smith has said that if he is ever asked to hand in his MC, he would hand in the Star of Gallantry, which compared to the DSO he was originally recommended, but given to the Brigadier, has little intrinsic value compared to the lovely gilt and enamelled DSO medal, the SG looking as though it was made for Idi Ahmin, stamped from beer cans and sprayed with gold paint ! While it was unusual for two awards to be worn for the same battle, there is precedence for the both MID and MM from WW1, and with Long Tan, there are two awards from two award systems. The ALP Govt rescinded the 2008 Requirement, on 11 August 2008, end of story. Although Harry Smith did not contribute to his history at any time, the author or commentators of his Wikipedia article should reinstate the MC as it was on 6/10/12, and change the Malayan medal to GSM 1918-62. Further, Harry Smith did not just "fought at the Battle", he personally commanded the Battle from start to finish as in his original DSO Citation. It is a pity that otherwise good 121.222.56.21 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia articles can be edited and changed at will, irrespective of the facts.
 * Hello again. Like I asked above do you have any references for this? If so by all means it should be included in the article and you, like any other internet user, are free to edit the article as long as it complies with Wikipedia policy for BLPs (as much as you seem to believe that that is somehow a bad thing). I'm perfectly aware of Harry Smith's role at Long Tan BTW (having served in 6 RAR myself - although far more recently - and done extensive research for the recent rewrite of Battle of Long Tan). I'll point out that the Harry Smith article is hardly complete at the moment and does not represent a full biography. The edits I made a while ago IRT to the issue of the MC and SG awarded to him do not represent an attempt to write such a biography, but were merely to bring it in line with the best information available (that I know of) from reliable sources. You clearly seem to have some knowledge of this topic so I would encourage you to update the article if the sources are available to support what you say. That said judging from your wall of text response, your failure to respond to my fairly simple request for sources, your slander of two distinguished officers (Townsend and Jackson), your denigration of the worthiness of the current Australian honours system (which has recently recognised the bravery in combat of many Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, some of whom have been killed or seriously injured during the actions for which they received their award), and your whinge about some perceived slight by Wikipedia editors against Harry Smith (who I might add I also consider to be an honourable and distinguished officer) and the soldiers of D Coy, 6 RAR I imagine you are probably more interested in grinding your axe, rather than actually improving the encyclopaedia. I hope to be proved wrong though. Good day. Anotherclown (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Clown: The Reference for rescinding two of the 2008 Review findings; the approval of the GRVN; and the removal of the requirement to return 1996 Imperial Awarsd is in fact the Senator Faulkner Reference quoted above. There is no wish or intent to slander the two senior officers, just to say that there was something amiss with an awards system that denied awards for officers and soldiers who fought, some wounded, others killed, in the Battle, yet approved DSO awards on perjurious citations, not written by the officers themselves, not their fault. It was the fault of a system well documented in Ian Barnes 1974 MHSA Book. The 11 Platoon commander killed in action was cited for a posthumous MID, denied. It is wonderful that D/6 soldiers in Afghanistan have been recognised, five awards among twenty men; and it should be noted that there is no ration on gallantry awards in the 1991 Contemporary System, which is good. My gripe is that you have removed (My) MC from the Wikipedia History without being up to date on 2008 Long Tan awards matters. I add that most of the above has been in the public domain since the end of the secrecy period 1996, and yes, I do have an intimate knowledge of Long Tan and Vietnam awards. If you are ex-6RAR then you will be able to get my Email and phone number if you wish to get the facts right. 121.222.56.21 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From the detail of your responses I have to say that I am fairly convinced of the likely accuracy of what you say, and I find it a very interesting turn of events (not to mention the possibility of righting a few more wrongs under the delayed DHAT Valour Enquiry Part 2 that you mention and of which I was unaware of until now). Indeed a further Google search does provide a considerable amount of annecdotal evidence to support the assertion of Harry Smith retaining his MC (including a photo from Flickr of his medals which includes both the SG and MC and a number of websites which use both post nominals - although none of the websites have much authority). Unfortunately under WP:RS we need secondary sources, so a letter from Senator Faulkner would not be sufficient either (unless it was already published in another source). Nor will emails be of any value (and I have no intention of entering into correspondence with you other than by these means, or on speculating about your identity). If there are published sources such as news articles, government reports, press releases, books, or reliable websites (like the AWM or the Military Historical Society), even Army News, etc that you are aware of then they can definitely be used though. You say this information is in the public domain so it should be fairly easy to find and include and I wish you the best of luck in finding it and including it in the appropriate articles. I note that the final volume of the official history published in 2012 doesn't seem to include this information though nor do any books that I have read on the subject (although I don't claim to be across all relevant works and I may have missed something so by all means pls prove me wrong). Nor is Barnes a useful source IRT to the specific detail of the MC/SG as it was of course published three and half decades before the SG was finally awarded in 2011. I admire your desire to get the facts right (which is exactly why I contribute too) but the way Wikipedia works is that only information included in reliable sources (and cited accordingly) can be added for the reason of verifiabilty (to counter the very issue you highlight of people including misinformation). So regardless of what individuals know to be true it must have been previously published. I again invite you update the Harry Smith article but ask that you work within the policy I have highlighted. IRT the issue of the BGSM I have had no involvement in this part of the article (that I recall) but will have a look at the issue and see if this can be resolved (although you can also do so yourself if you wish also). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To Another Clown: If a letter from the PMs' Cabinet Secretary is not sufficient evidence of the new ALP Goverment's decision to approve the GRVN CGCP awards and the retention of 1966 Imperial Awards, then there is little point in continuing this discussion. Further, I presume you are the author of the Battle Of Long Tan Wikipedia account. While it is very good there are numerous points that are incorrect and it would improve the account if the facts were published. Also, the recent publication of the Translation of D445 and 275 Regt History by Brig Ernie Chamberlain (Retd)throws doubts on several issues. One is that the alleged role of 547 Signals unit in revealing the enemy was approaching at 1km per day, a most unusually slow pace for the enemy which often moved 20,000m a day, was apparently based on information provided by US Army Sig Int based near Saigon and sent by Flash signal to ATF. Next is the fact that D445 was not involved in the main battle with D Coy 6RAR, but was probably the meeters and greeters for the reinforced 275 Regiment which arrived to the east of Long Tan rubber, probably into the weapon pits discovered later. 245 Regt obviously wished to keep their presence secret and did not molest D Coy and A Coy Patrols near Nui Dat on 15 and 16 August, nor attack B Coy on western edge of the rubber on 17/18th. D445 involvement was only two companies as encountered by the APC Troop, one moving SW and one moving east, 1000m and 800m south of D Coy, as in the Official History (McNeil). D445 claims to have mortared the Nui Dat base for three days to "lure the tiger from the mountain" and caused two battalions and a squadron of tanks to move out along the road to Long tan, to be ambushed, with the panic striken survivors fleeing south 8km to Dat Do. The brief mortaring of Nui Dat on the morning of the 17th was conducted by 275 Regt heavy weapons units, not by D445. To go on, 2 Platoon A Coy did not dismount, just a total of eleven men, including Lt Peter Dinham, got out of the far right APC and briefly supported Sgt Alcorta and Late Pte Brett who rolled off the top of the APC. Why they were on top in enemy territory is questionable, as there were only nine men inside, less than the twelve normally carried. Further, 2 Platoon was not dismounted near D Coy later, although the APC Section got ahead then turned around and went south back to the Troop. The Troop on the arrival of the CO6RAR, unopposed by enemy after the second encounter further south, turned east and chased the last of the already withdrawing enemy to the east before losing contact and returning NW to D Coy, unopposed. D Coy in APCs, not A Coy following on foot, located the thirteen dead and two wounded of 11 Platoon. And so on............... My authority is that I was there in 1966 and have researched the facts in more recent years. Have a good day. 121.222.56.21 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday - to clarify the issue with the letter is not its evidentiary quality but simply the fact that it is a primary document (as opposed to a secondary source) and also is presumably unavailable to the general public or a reviewer for verification. IRT the other issues you raise about the Long Tan article I appreciate the time you have taken to proof read it and will fact check these parts against the sources used. That said the article (I believe) faithfully reflects the information available in the main books on the topic so if there are errors in the narrative this is likely due to innacuaracies in those works (in particular McNeill and McAulay which I have primarily used). As such the errors you highlight may be difficult to resolve. IRT to your comment about D Coy locating the men from 11 Platoon on 19 Aug, Charles Mollison (who as A/OC A Coy was obviously also there on the day) specifically claims that his men located them (as the citation in the article indicates). This contradiction between two seemingly reliable witnesses is fairly typical of the histography of this battle which has been covered in great detail over the years in quite a large number of books, many with quite different interpretations of the events. IRT to BRIG Chamberlain's book I have previously attempted to obtain a copy from the author but have so far been unsuccessful in getting a response (as the online version seems incomplete to me). Anotherclown (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To Another Clown: One of the many problems with various books relative to Long Tan is that Authors relied on statements by soldiers who had little perception of what went on outside their limited area of vision. For example, one claimed in LexMCauley's book that Smith took a pearl-handled Colt .45 off a dead VC. Not so, it was a steel Tokarev 7.62 pistol, now in the AWM. This problem is also stated in Lt Col Stewart Tootal's book about 3 Para in Afghanistan where he had problems getting the truthful facts about IEDs and contacts. Late Ian McNeil interviewed Kiem who claimed to be CO D45 in 1966 but it is now shown by Ernie Chamaberlain that Keim was not at the Battle and did not join D445 until later. Gary McKay MC reviewed the book by Charles Mollison for the MHSA and canned it because it was far from correct, and even this last August Mollison was claiming "he commanded the APCs" and "his APCs" routed two enemy battalions moving west to encircle D Coy. This is incorrect and even in his own 1966 AAR he reported just two Companies of enemy. The Late Ian McNeil shows two companies of D445 whereas the Mollison book shows a battalion of 275 Regt and D445 Battalion both moving west. Rubbish. In any case the encounters with the APC reinforcement force (NOT a RELIEF FORCE as often stated; Smith requested reinforcements, not to be relieved to go home - the Oxford version) were at about 1000m and 800m south of the main battle with D/6. As to the command of the APCs a 2012 article by Gen COATES AO MBE, former CGS, clearly states the barney between Roberts and Mollison was due to the inexperience of the Acting OC A Coy (Mollison) with regard to APC work, and the armour OC is always in command while on the move to the objective. As to the APC reinforcement force at Long Tan, Adrian Roberts was the legal commander on the move, but CO6RAR and Capt Mollison both lay claim to command of that force. CO6RAR makes that claim in a 1974 article to 6RAR Duty First; it is in his DSO citation and in the 6RAR Vietnam History book 66-67 ?? The CO did not arrive with the APC Troop until about 1850hours when it was 300m south of D Coy position. As to the enemy moving in to just east of the Long Tan Rubber, it is agreed in both D445 and 275 Regt History that the Command Group of HQ 5 Div met at Ap Phouc Long to plan the attack on Nui Dat or Baria, or an ambush ? Two prisoners of NVA origin said they were to attack Nui Dat. Why the 275 HQ radio was logged at 1000m per day is illogical as that meant daily walks of just 20 minutes. Former D445 officers agreed with two former D/6 PLatoon Commanders in 2006 that D445 was mainly near Xa Long Tan and that it was not involved in the Main battle to the north. Former Capt Mike Wells AATTV at Baria 1966 agrees, based on intelligence given to 10ARVN Div. It appears D445's main role was to meet, guide and feed 275 Regt units and they may ? have dug the large area of weapon pits east of the rubber for them. An attack on Nui Dat the night of the Concert appears to have been the plan and no one has ever been able to explain why they mortared Nui Dat early on the 17th. Some claim it was the wrong night ! Others claim it was to neutralise the Arty area ? D445 Histiory claims they mortared Nui dat continuously for three days and set a 3km long(successful) ambush along the Long Phouc-Xa Long Tan Road ?? Propaganda to convince locals of their victory over US Puppet forces ! Best regards.121.222.56.21 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday again 121.222.56.21. If you are still out there pls accept my apology if my initial comments above seemed a bit rude. In a less sober moment recently I read over this again and felt I might have been a little out of line. As an old Digger I’m sure you are fairly thick skinned and can handle yourself but I didn’t want to leave this unsaid. I guess sometimes as soldiers our automatic response to a tactical problem is to return fire and hope it leaves us alone. I can also sometimes be a bit touchy about some subjects too. Given your background I can see where you were coming from and I want to say that I greatly respect the exploits of the men at Long Tan and the losses and sacrifices they made. So thank you again, both for your service and for your interest in ensuring these articles are accurate. Take care. Anotherclown (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Kapyong
Hello Clown. Just letting you know that I fixed an error on the Battle of Kapyong article. The short citations said "Breen 1994" but Breen's book "The Battle of Kapyong" was written in 1992. You got it right in the references section but wrong in the short cites. His book "The Battle of Mayang San" was written in 1994 and I think this is where you probably got them mixed up unintentionally. I own both of these works and checked the citations first to make sure this change was correct. Otherwise its quite a good article. Hey great user name BTW, I'm thinking of registering as "Someclown" - what do you think? 220.236.1.127 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day 220. Thanks for this - you are indeed correct about the citation. I wrote a lot of the First Battle of Maryang San article around the same time as Kapyong so that must have been it. That error has been around for quite a while so I'm glad it was finally noticed and fixed. I've seen you around for a while in some capacity or another making small improvements to a number of MILHIST, cricket and WP:AUS articles, although your IP seems to change slightly all the time I'm pretty sure you're the same bloke. The encyclopedia could really use some more knowledgable Australian editors (pretty sure you're an Aussie) so I hope you do consider regeristing as a user. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'll never register because there is just too much politics on Wikipedia to get that involved. The image police seem intent on vandalising as many pages as possible by removing good quality images, leaving the articles looking bare and amaturish. (Some how that is meant to improve the encyclopedia?) There are also far too many people that think they own the articles they work on - in particular the WWI Middle East articles, that old woman is insane. I wouldn't go near them with anything less than a combined-arms platoon with infantry, cavalry, engineers and a JTAC. It would be ok if the articles were any good but they're poorly written, overly detailed and POV. 220.236.11.43 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very droll 220. I think I know exactly who you're talking about too. Probably best if we leave it there though, don't want to draw the crabs. Take care friend, I'm going to the gym. Anotherclown (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI
An Editor has taken your name here but has not informed you , AS per the ANI policies I am informing you, regards-- D Big X ray   17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - thank you for letting me know. Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Stuart Paul Weir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial Sugar Refining Company (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) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

6
I know its possibly a bit close to home, but I wonder if you might want to write a short section on 6's involvement in Afghan. The article is probably not quite up to date at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Been thinking about it. Need some refs though - I believe there was actually an MTF-1 history written by the Battalion (or at least it was meant to have been using RTF funds) but that was after I posted out. I need to try and get my hands on it. Do you think the citation for the MUC in the Commonwealth Gazette could be used as a reference? Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think that would be fine, as the section would probably only be quite small. There are probably a couple of media releases on the Defence website that could be used, too, and a few news articles around the place. I think there's a source listed on the 7th Brigade and possibly the 2 CER article that could be used. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've written a little on this now. Pls have a look and let me know what you think when you get a chance. Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thanks for adding that. The photo is good as well. I only wish we'd updated the article before it went up on the main page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I never took that many photographs... I guess it felt wrong to be a tourist. There would have been some great photos though. Anotherclown (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

17th Construction Squadron
G'day mate, I wonder if any of your Vietnam sources could help out with this article: 17th Construction Squadron (Australia). If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Sure, will see what I can do. Random as it is not being a sapper but for some reason I've got "Paving the Way: The Royal Australian Engineers 1945 to 1972" by BRIG Greville. There is a large amount of material in there about 17 Construction - almost too much. Its very detailed and lacks a usable index. Will see what I can pull out of it though. The offical history by McNeill and Ekins should probably be useful too. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've got Paving the Way, too. Just looking through it now in fact. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a bit tonight, but the article could probably still use your input if you gt a moment. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done a bit now. Probably more that could be added but we probaby risk unbalancing the article if we do. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. Yes, I think we need to be careful about not going too far with the treatment of Vietnam. If the INTERFET and the other more recent sections could be expanded, then it would probably allow Vietnam more room. Also, images would help to make it look less like a wall of text. Unfortunately, I don't have many sources relating to the recent work of the unit and I haven't been able to find any free images relating to the unit. I'm not happy with the way the 6 ESR section has been dealt with, either (entirely my own fault as I added this). Thanks for your help with this one. I won't have much time today, though, as I have to go to work in a bit (got to brief the CO next week and need to prepare). Also, can I ask another favour? Can you please watchlist Battle of Milne Bay, if you haven't already? It will appear on the Main Page shortly and I might need a hand keeping an eye on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy. No worries - already watchlisted. Anotherclown (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I have "Australia and the New World Order" by Horner so I might see what I can use from that to reference the Namibia section. Anotherclown (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Well I'd better go. Work is piling up. Have a good one. Might talk tonight. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Got beaten to it - not a bad thing though! Anotherclown (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Frustratingly, I can't find anything for the four citation needed tags. I think it would be B class, if these could be dealt with. That is probably where I would look to cut my involvement. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive
I did a bit of clean up work on this, this morning. I think that the original contributor might have written it a bit too close to The Age article, so I've tried to rewrite it. It could do with another set of eyes, and if you have any, a couple more sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday. I've added a bit now, although I'm a little unclear on how Operation Perth fit in to the overall offensive. I think this may need to wait until more definitive coverage of the events is available. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. I agree totally, it won't be possible to get this to B class for a while. Oh well, its better than it what it was before. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Lone Pine
G'day mate, do you want to work on an article together? I've slowly been working to improve Battle of Lone Pine (haven't done anything on it for a while, though). It gets a few thousand hits a month, so it would be good to at least get it to GA. A collaboration might make the work quicker/easier. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Contact, wait out... (by which I mean I have to go to work again). Talk later. Anotherclown (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing serious, I hope. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was, dealt with now though. Sure I'll see what I can do on Lone Pine. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a slug - sorry I haven't helped with this at all! Its looking quite good now. Is there any area in particular you feel still needs work that you think I could help with? Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a couple more changes after the review, mainly to restructure the Aftermath. Would you mind taking a look? I'm thinking of striking at ACR while the fire is hot. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy, those changes look good to me. Can't see any issues with continuing on to ACR. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will probably do that at the end of this week. Pretty busy with a course, but after that should be good to go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Claude Choules
Your remark that anyone is trying to sell books is unwarranted. My rationale was to clarify the publishing history of Mr Choules’ autobiography, The Last of the Last. The Wikipedia article had the 2010 Mainstream (UK) edition as being published in 2009. This is not so; that 2009 publication was by Hesperian Press (Perth, Australia). The distinction between the two editions is relevant because the 2010 Mainstream edition (apart from having a different pagination) carried some historical annotations additional to Mr Choules’ text. The assumption that the original Wikipedia editor cited the 2009 Australian edition is wrong. He or she used material that is either not in the 2009 edition or appears on pages other than those cited. The current article now has references citing the wrong edition. 124.168.253.225 (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The original editor used short citations that say "Choules 2009" - hence my "assumption" they used the 2009 work. The reasoning seems sound to me. If you want to add additional material available in a later version of the book that is fine but cite it correctly. Anotherclown (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi AC – I became involved at the request of "124.168.253.225", whom I have known in real life for many years, and who asked me for help in correcting referencing errors in Claude Choules. For what it's worth, I believe that "124" is well informed about Claude, is well qualified to edit this article, and has double-checked the page nos in the in-text citations, against both the Aust (2009) and UK (2010) eds of the autobiography. So I am confident that the page numbers cited in the latest version of the article are now correct. Cheers, Grant  |  Talk  04:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy with that Grant65. Thanks for clarifying the validity of the edits and for cleaning up the article. Anotherclown (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Coord?
AC, are you going to run for coord this time? It would be great to have you on board. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday. No I won't be. Anotherclown (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for all your reviewing work, good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all Dank, would like to get back into reviewing shortly. Hope I didn't sound short above - I'm just too busy with work to take on the responsbility of being a co-ord. Anotherclown (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a change of heart... I've now decided to nominate. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for nominating! Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Invitation to join MILHIST
Thank you for the invitation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I hope you consider it as the project needs new editors that are willing to contribute. If you have any questions about the project pls feel free to ask me and I'll try and assist where ever possible. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
In recognition of your election as a co-ordinator of the Military history project for the September 2012 to September 2013 period, please accept these co-ord stars. Thank you for standing and I hope it will be a fruitful year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now for the awkward question... what do co-ordinators actually do? Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, it can be quite varied. A few tasks can include (you can pick and choose): closing A-class reviews; totalling up the monthly article contest (verifying entries, handing out awards and writing up the result in the Bugle); totalling up quarterly reviewing contributions; discussing strategy on the co-ord page; handing out awards; editing the monthly Bugle (adding summaries of successful FACs, ACRs, FLCs, etc. and sometimes chipping in with an op-ed piece or a book review). I've added a few suggstions for some initiatives for the 12–13 period: when you get a chance, please let me know what you think. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. BTW congratulations on being joint-lead co-ord. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Hopefully I don't set the place on fire. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * L just said your name was StrangeRupert... Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
for this, I'm not savvy with maps/infoboxes. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service
Thanks for your comments and support for this article's promotion to A-class (I was busy with an essay all weekend, so I'm afraid that I didn't have time to respond to your comments before the review was archived this afternoon). I've fixed the referencing issued you noted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I'm hoping you continue the "X aircraft in Australian service" series... I've always been facinated with military aviation but was too dumb to be a pilot! Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've really enjoyed writing these articles, so more are planned. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Chaytor's Force
Hi, thank you for Talk:Chaytor's Force Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chaytor's Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division (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) 11:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian occupation of German New Guinea
Hi Anotherclown, just letting you know that I have created the article Australian occupation of German New Guinea amd order of battle. I know you were invloved in the Battle of Bita Paka and Siege of Toma. Please feel free to jump in and copy edit, expand, criticise, reword as necessary. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday. Thats a good idea - will see what involvement I might be able to have. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

John Adair
Just a note to let you know that John Adair, an article you supported at MILHIST ACR, is now at FAC, in case you want to comment there. Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mentoring Task Force One, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battlegroup (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) 10:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Long Tan order of battle
Hi Anotherclown. I was wondering the SAS should be mentioned in the order of battle as they did have a number of patrols in the area providing intel prior to the battle and supporting the action and subsequent actions. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday. To the best of my knowledge the SAS were not directly involved in the battle. They were of course involved in long range reconnaisance prior to the battle, but that was their normal role within 1 ATF and they didn't operate anywhere near the site in the days just before, being well west in the Nui Dinh hills. No SAS patrols were deployed as a result of the mortar attack on 16/17 August either, instead they continued with their already scheduled patrol program. I might of missed something though so if you think they should be included I'm certainly willing to discuss it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently an SAS patrol was inserted into an area 16 klms from Nui Dat at 0615 on 17 August after the mortar attack. Whether or not this was an already scheduled patrol program, I am not sure. I am using this as my reference. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Yes this was one of the already scheduled patrols and is specifically mentioned in Battle of Long Tan. The patrol was inserted 16 km NE of Nui Dat (Long Tan was approx 5,000 m east of Nui Dat - so it was a distance from the final battle site). The official history is fairly clear that no SAS patrols were deployed as a result of the mortaring. See McNeill 1993, p. 306. Interestingly this patrol does appear to have detected some VC activity, which may have been the logistic elements. I'm going to clarify this point in the main article shortly. I previously included this info in a note but then deleted it rather zealously as part of my attempts to downsize it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Newm30 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems at all. Thanks for taking the time to make suggestions to improve the article. Anotherclown (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

List of military operations involving Australia
LOL! Yes, Category:Military operations involving Australia would indeed seem an appropriate category for the page! Thanks, and thanks for the other changes, too. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
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) 01:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Aust-Army-LCPL.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-LCPL.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW image was reformated and renamed. Bloody bots. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Aust-Army-CPL.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-CPL.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also reformatted and renamed. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"that didn't work"
That was remarkably polite and diplomatic of you! ( MUCH better than the "rvv" that I would have used.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Passchendaele *
I wondered too but that's what's on the book so I copied it.Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Worldcat has a dash, so I'm guessing the * on the book may have just been for the sake of presentation of the title on the cover? Anotherclown (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Morning Ac; probably. It's nice to see someone taking an interest in the page ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too easy. You've done some sterling work on these articles. Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're not so bad yourself. I've learnt a lot about the technical details since I started but I've got a long way to go. While Messines (1917) is going through the A-class process I've done a couple of pages for the later battles of the Somme 1916 and find that it's taking two days rather than two weeks. All I intended to do was practice B-class assessments....Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dashes you fixed...
Hi - your bot recently passed through Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor and fixed some dashes. Some of the dashes fixed were inside quotes and were the original constructions and titles of the references, brought forward. Now, they no longer are. In my opinion, that's an error. Thoughts? ...best, JMOprof (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems ok to me (other than the one you fixed which you are probably right about). Pls see WP:DASH re endashs. I don't think it matters whether its in a quote or a title thats the style that is used AFAIK. BTW its not a bot its a script (and its not mine). See the documentation here if you have concerns. Anotherclown (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still seems wrong to edit a reference, but other style guides do it too, so I guess I'll just have to get over it. &#9786; Season's cheer. JMOprof (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian Army in World War II
Your expansion of this article is great work - I've been putting off fleshing out the 'Campaigns' section for years now! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday Nick. Thanks - I mostly half-inched it from Military history of Australia during World War II. Probably some of your work in there and some of Ruperts and Hawkeye's I think (amoung others). Going to keep working on it over the next few days hopefully. I've got a lot of free time over the holidays in between going to the gym and watching cricket and I'm taking a bit of a break from Long Tan and a few other things I'm working on. I would welcome any suggestions you might have for additions (especially given you started the original article!) Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the main things missing are material on the POWs held by Japan and Germany and the Army's post-war occupation duties in the East Indies; I've been meaning to write an article about the latter for a while now, so I'll draft this (Long has good coverage of this topic, and a recent book by Ronald Spector I own provides an interesting perspective). It would be good to get the article to at least GA status, and I don't think that this would now require all that much extra work. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, I'll wait out until you've done this. I'm going to look at trying to bash out a lead tommorrow and probably add a bit to the organisation section IRT the various reorganisations that occurred during the war. Anotherclown (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re this edit summary, it seems that we've been simultaneously working on material on BCOF! I've beaten you to adding my version to the article, but of course please feel free to change it significantly. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great... I'm a lazy man anyway! Anotherclown (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Howdy again. I noticed in your edit summary re BCOF you asked if it was too much. I actually added some... it kind of felt like it needed to be taken to its natural conclusion. Also I moved it to the last para as it seemed to be more linear from a chronological perspective (to me anyway). Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to the article being nominated for A-class this weekend? I'd like to get it through the process, successful or otherwise, before going away. I'm just adding alt text at the moment, which is a bit slow and boring, to be honest... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy - sure lets take it to ACR. Great work with getting this one through GA BTW. I got busy yesterday afternoon but came back this morning to find it promoted. Also thanks for fixing my hideous grammer and spelling - I think I'm getting worse (really should stop editing with a G&T at midnight... as if thats my excuse though...). Have a good one. Anotherclown (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I use that technique too (G&T at midnight). Actually, I think its writing at work that does it. I've gotten worse. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just created a Structure of the Australian Army during World War II article before someone complained about the redlink to the order of battle article in the ACR (see also links aren't meant to be red). I'm in no way attached to the article's title or any of its content! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In hindsight that is a much better title. Nice work - will see what I can add to it in time. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. Long Tan is a good article. 49.176.100.182 (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you masked stranger a few editors have worked on this. I've been working on it for over a year now but it is still probably a bit too large to go to GA. Am slowly working on reducing it though and its on my bucket list for sure. Following recent actions in the Middle East D Coy, 6 RAR is probably now one of the most highly decorated companies in the history of the Royal Australian Regiment so I think this battle will continue to attract people's interest for many years to come. Take care friend. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you
The touch up was nice thank you. You have sort of put yourself in a unique position to answer a Q. Was that article in "draft" condition? I ask because just withing minutes of your attention, another asdmin removed Fort Anne tags from several that I am watching, particularly that mans family that battled with him. JGVR (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday. It seems most of my edits were undone by My76Strat anyway... not sure why though as they are required under the WP:MOS as far as I can tell. Oh well thats wiki I guess. Perhaps it was an edit conflict. IRT your question I'm not sure what you mean by "removed Fort Anne tags" would you be able to give me an example of one of the edits you are referring to and I will have a look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Im a bit baffled there were about 7 in a row done right at the time people helped with my pages and now all but one indication has vanished even where it should say I added Battle of Fort Ann (1777) right back on except for the sandbox. All that shows in history is the one i agree with lol:
 * (diff | hist) . . User:JGVR/sandbox‎; 11:18 . . (-41)‎ . . ‎Good Olfactory (talk | contribs)‎ (drafts don't actually go in real categories)

JGVR (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday again JGVR. I see what you're referring to now. Not sure why the category was removed from those pages, on the surface it seems to make sense to me that the biography of a particpant in the battle probably belongs in the category of the battle. That said I haven't been following the others issues going on with some of these articles so I can't really comment with any authority. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Table
User talk:Keith-264/sandbox2 Here's the result of the experiment, although I think it might not add that much per se. On the later pages the deterioration might become more evident. 17-21 Sept were wet but I wonder if it was the disturbed state of the ground rather than the amount of water that caused so much mud? Anyway you've been very helpful, especially after I realised that the template had "center" rather than centre in the formula.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Link

 * Sent you a msg via black means... AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)