User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Army in World War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages La Perouse and West Papua (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) 11:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle and theatre honours of the Australian Army
Sorry for the edit conflict. I was just looking at the battle honours for Crete and noticed that Middle East 1941, is identified as Middle East 1941-1944 on the AWM website. I also think the battle honour Johore would be better linked to Malayan Campaign. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Newm30. You have a keen eye for detail. This is an interesting honour - you are indeed correct in that the AWM calls it "Middle East 1941-1944". Unfortanely two other sources only call it "Middle East 1941" (both the Army website and Rodger 2003 p 338, although they both aggree that the date of service was 1941 to 1944! According to Rodger there were actually two different battle honours: one was "Middle East 1941" (which was awarded to a bunch of British and Australian units) and the other was "Middle East 1941-44" (awarded to NZ units only). As such I think the AWM might be slightly off here, in that while the dates of service were indeed 1941-1944 the honour as presented to the Australian Army appears to have been called "Middle East 1941". At least thats my take on the sources - but I'm speculating a little here. Thoughts? Re the link for Johore - your idea makes sense. Happy with you making the change if you wish. I'm heading out now for a few hours so if your interested in adding more links to the article there shouldn't be any edit conflicts. Thanks for your help with this one. Anotherclown (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe one for AWM to answer. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) A-Class Review
Thank you for your comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)! I believe I've addressed all of the comments you made, but feel free to let me know if there's anything else that would help polish this article up. I'm looking to do GAN next, and then FAC if it's at all possible. Thanks again!  Cdtew  (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. I've added my support now. Good luck with the project. Anotherclown (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Messines 1917
I've incorporated most of the suggestions made about the Messines 1917 article, are you happy to support A-class status or so you think more work is necessary? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday. I've completed my review and added my support now. Best of luck with it. Anotherclown (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

fyi...
FYI... The WikiProject Biography banner is always the first banner on a talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard that one before - can you pls point to the policy which states that? Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TPL. There is another reason TPL does't mention and it is for listas reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - will do in future. Anotherclown (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate!
Hi Anotherclown,

I noticed that you've been polishing my edits to Phillip Hughes. Thanks mate, I appreciate it!

Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.25.47 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Good to see someone adding references. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2013 (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 Australian Army in World War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vila, Bougainville and New Ireland (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) 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade
Hi thanks for picking up the GA review for the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade. There seems to be a strangly timed attack on it at the moment, if you want to hold off on the review I don't mind. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did start reverting but leaving it for now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not problem - I've placed it on hold for now. Thanks for the note. Anotherclown (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Green
G'day, is there anything else that you think needs to be added to Charles Hercules Green? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing seems to leap out at me as being missing, although I note the Butler refs does devote a lot of space to discussing Green's tactics. Probably not really required to go to that sort of detail though. I think the article summarizes the subject fairly well as is. Maybe add 41st Bn to the "Comds Held" field? Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks. I've put it up for re-assessment now, as I think it should be up to B class standard. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture and map captions.
Greetings again AnotherC, do you know why manages to go where I want it but the caption won't appear? I copied the caption format from pictures which have them but nothing appeared here User:Keith-264/sandbox2 and also tried removing the chevrons.Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Yep you just need to add the "thumb" parametre so it displays as a thumbnail. Pls see the diff of this edit . I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you.Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS don't think I haven't noticed the anachronistic colonial drive-by. ;O);O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday again Keith. I had to think about this one for a bit as I always thought an anachronism was something ascribed to an earlier time period not a later one (which I'm guessing was your point). Nonetheless I'm assuming you were refering to me adding the Canadian flag to the infobox of this article. That said, and I'll admit to not being 100% on consistitutional law, I do not agree with the implication that the armies of the Dominions were part of the British Army during World War I as you seem to contend. Doubtless the Dominions were not completely independent until adopting the Statute of Westminster in 1942 but their status as self governing seems compelling, even if there were of course part of the British Empire.


 * Again I'm not at all familiar with Canada but as a example Australian forces were raised under an act of the Australian parliament (the Defence Act 1903) and were not subject to the British Army Act. As a consequence they could only face the death penalty for four offences - mutiny, desertion, treatchery leading to fall of a garrision and treasonous correspondence, and even then the sentence had to be confirmed by the Governor-General. As a consequence no Australian soldier was put to death during the war. In contrast the British Army Act provided the death penalty for no less the 17 offences and hundreds of British soldiers were shot. Equally, unlike the United Kingdom, recruitment in Australia remained voluntarily with conscription being rejected twice by the Australian people in two seperate referenda. Were the Australian Army a mere adjunct of the British Army one assumes such matters would have been decided in Whitehall, but instead they were matters of public policy decided by the Australian government and its electorate. Anotherclown (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That bit about the Governor-General is the constitutional nicety. The Westminster parliament was sovereign (I thought until the 1931 Statute of Westminster). My point isn't that Dominion units were indistinguishable but that they were integral, they had the same operational chain of command. My understanding of anachronism is that it means "wrong time" - like a painting of the Mona Lisa with a tin of Fosters. If we put symbols in as if Australian and Canadian forces were seperate as if they were from independent allied states like the Portuguese army, then Saxon and Bavarian etc contingents need to be treated the same. I fear I have a bit of a bee up my bum about it but when the flags are put in I've tried to leave them alone, honest.Keith-264 (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the Westminster parliament was technically sovereign, but that is not the issue here. I'm not going to attempt to argue about the difference between 'de jure' and 'de facto' independence (mainly because I don't fully understand it), but as I've already demonstrated above the Australian Army was entirely seperate administratively and had its own conditions of service. This was no nicety, it was a legislative fact. Administered entirely sererately with policy decided in Australia by Australians. Yes integrated operationally with the British Army, and often with British commanders, but so are most modern coalitions (although I agree this is a shakey comparison - national command arrangements for one being far more restrictive of course). I don't follow your argument about Saxon and Bavarian contingents either really - IMO the equivalent argument would be to list individual Australian states under Australia - like Queensland, or Canadian provinces like British Colombia and no one is arguing to do that. AFAIK the Statute of Westminster was not adopted until 1942, although it was passed in 1931. It was then applied retrospectively to 1939. Regardless I'd argue that the status of self-governing Dominion was a fairly unique one which probably warrants an infobox flag where there was significant involvement. Indeed each of the Dominions sent their own delegations to the Paris Peace Conference (although that was controversial). As an aside do you know if this has been discussed before and what the consensus there was? Would be interesting to know. Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the status of Dominion formations was akin to Pals battalions in the Citizen Army? I have the impression that it's a hardy perennial but I've not pursued it formally. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know very much about the Citizen Army either but I can't really see how they would be analogous (the Pals Battalions were still units of the British Army weren't they?). FWIW - like you I'm not looking to make this an issue. I disagree with you for the reasons I've outlined above but I think we can both agree there are far more important things for us to do with our time, so I'm happy to move on. Anyway I had a bit of a rethink about the definition of an "anachronism" BTW - and have to admit that you were indeed using it correctly (the Foster's explaination worked well in explaining it to a beer swilling colonial such as myself - thanks). The way I saw it you were saying that as Canada was a Dominion not an independent nation in World War I, applying the Canadian flag was a case of placing the battle at a point in time the future (i.e. when Canada was an independent nation). Of course though, if one accepts that the battle occurred when it did (which is obvious now I think of it), placing the flag on it was placing it in the past hence it is anachronstic. Anyway I digress - I'll learn the Queen's English one day! If you don't mind me asking where are you from BTW? Take it easy Keith. Anotherclown (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oi! I'm English! Haven't you noticed the truculent manner and slighting remarks about Australian cricket? (we've got to be quick given Engand's record of self-destructing when there's no opposition to do it for them;O)) Apropos the Canadian flag it's the red one not the maple leaf flag - won't that risk annoying modern Canadians?Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I assumed as much (English that is). Don't mention the cricket (to misquote another Englishmen)! Its not like it was in my childhood... we'll come good one day but I fear the Ashes are lost (depending on ones allegiance) for a few more years yet. Re the old version of the flag - my experience from other articles is that the version that was current at the time of the event is the one that is used by custom (not sure if there is a policy on that). To use the maple leaf version would indeed be anachronistic (IMO anyway)! You are right though - it has at times attracted the odd drive by change by IPs though (an example would be Battle of Kapyong). Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Australian Army during World War II
G'day Anotherclown, the project tag on this page has a red "currently undergoing" (A class) link. I think maybe because the page was moved after the ACR started. I haven't a scoobie how to fix it. As nominator, can you sort it? Sorry about that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've fixed this. This occured due to the article being moved after the review was opened. My understanding is that what is required in these circumstances is for the review page to be moved in sympathy with the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gents. Anotherclown (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is still listed under "Need project tag fixed", so there is something pwetty screwy goin on awound here... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a noodle scratcher... I managed to fix three others in that category with fairly simple tweaks but can't figure this one out at the moment. Sorry lads - seems my moving the article has caused this one. Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)
Are you happy with this article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Hawkeye7 - I still have a couple of outstanding points. I've responded at the review. Thanks for the prod! Anotherclown (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 Febrary 2013 with Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

More details can be found at Meetup/Brisbane/7. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 02:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to you because your userpage (user:) says you are located in 'Queensland' without specifying which region of Queensland you are located in. Please add a more specific sub-category in order to be informed of what is happening in your region.)

Changing interwiki links
I reverted your change to September 11 attack because Wikidata does not support Featured and Good article stars in the display of wikilinks. This is one of the cases where it was discussed not to use Wikidata yet. Rmhermen (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also make sure that you do not remove interwiki links that are not on wikidata yet as you did here  •Add§hore•  Talk To Me! 22:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this.

Further information: Wikidata/Deployment Questions and https://blog.wikimedia.de/?p=13892.

All interwiki bots that run on the English Wikipedia have now stopped adding interwiki links.

Removal of interwiki links on a page linked to a wikidata item that contains the links is NOT vandalism. Please use this script which can identify if the links are found on wikidata.

If you have any questions regarding wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata.  •Add§hore•  Talk To Me! 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Thanks for the script. Yes I've been adding the missing links manually to wikidata but I guess I missed one. How do you know the script is working? I've put it in my common file but can't see any visible sign that its doing anything. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you are in the edit window there is a new button up the top that will remove interwiki links found on wikidata, there is no rush to remove all of these manually with lots of clicks as bots are migrating the links to wikidata and removing the links on EN articles.  •Add§hore•  Talk To Me! 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I see it now. Thanks muchly. Anotherclown (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

advisor.js
I've just noticed this recent edit using advisor.js, which italicised a piece of legislation "per WP:ITALICS". As far as I'm aware, this isn't common practice on WP or off it (it's not mentioned at the linked page) - I've removed that change & filed a bug report for advisor.js, but you might want to know in case it crops up again!

Thanks for the other tidying, Andrew Gray (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy - that wasn't advisor - that was me doing an edit with advisor and a manual edit at the same time. So no need to report as a bug. BTW, WP:ITALICS mentions court case names but I guess your saying this is different to legislation. Its come up in quite a few ACRs that legislation should be in italics, although I agree the policy doesn't seem to actually say legislation. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Belated congrats, AC -- as Hawkeye suggests, how appropriate that there's an article each from three wars across three consecutive decades in this one ACM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gents. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

interwiki
Hi Dear friend! I added fa interwiki and you wiped it out. You friendly mentioned that has been in wikidata. thanks for your technical editing but my question is why am I seeing interwiki on the page whereas I don't surprisingly see Alborzagros (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Wikidata is the new way of maintaining interwiki links centrally (as opposed to on each individual page). So links get added to Wikidata not the article itself. Its a very recent change so you may not of heard of it yet. You will notice that although the markup was removed from the article, the link still appears on the left hand tool bar under the heading "languages". The reason you see this markup in other articles is that the bot (or our human editors) haven't gotten around to removing them all yet (its a work in progress). I hope this explaination helps. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Zealand Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhys Jones (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) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Msg from user page
And G'day Anotherclown, I'm just writing to say thanks for giving me the heads up, I only started recently, thanks mate. --The Researcher2 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (Delete at will... obviously)
 * No problem at all. Anotherclown (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the invitation to the military history wikiproject. I just added my name to the list of contributors. Anne (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Confused
I don't really get what we do in MILHIST can you please clarify what one editor does in the group. Do we make articles that involves war or something else. I would appreciate if you can explain this to me simply, Thanks.
 * Gday. MILHIST is a fairly large project with a broad scope which includes wars / battles / events, organisations / units / formations, weapons / equipment, theory, biographies, and even books and films (to name a few). Like the rest of wikipedia editors are free to participate as much or as little as they want and there are no real set tasks or anything like that. If you are looking at a way of contributing pls have a look at our list of open tasks. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I get it now thanks for the info. 3:54, 1 Apil 2013

File:Wavell p.134.jpeg
Thanks very much for fixing the PD tag - I couldn't work out what the problem was! Much appreciated - All the best, --Rskp (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you about this again, but the file has been deleted anyway. Reason being: "File:Wavell p.134.jpeg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was deleted pursuant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_10#File:Wavell_p.134.jpeg. PD-UK says that images are public domain in the UK 70 years after the death of the author. But in order for the image to be used on Wikipedia, it needs to be public domain in the United States (where Wikimedia's servers are located) - it doesn't matter if it is public domain in the country of origin. If it was published in 1933 in the UK, it's still copyrighted here. Now, all that said, please see commons:Commons:Derivative_works#Maps. The underlying facts of the map are not copyrightable. So you could ask at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab and someone could probably make a nice map that shows the information embodied in this map, but is an original creative work. --B (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)" Is there anyway of getting it reinstated? --Rskp (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience with the process (and my only attempt to have an image "undeleted" failed); however, you can request the decision be reviewed here: Deletion review. You will need to be able to argue why the decision was contrary to policy. It may pay to post a notice on the MILHIST talk page if / when you request review notifying others of the discussion. Best of luck. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It does seem weird that the editor who deleted the file on the basis of the typo now claims its something entirely different. --Rskp (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I noticed the same thing. Anotherclown (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

James Moore (Continental Army officer)
Hey! Thanks for your comments on my article over at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Moore (Continental Army officer). Just wanted to let you know I've addressed your concerns, and would be happy to discuss it further with you on that page. Thanks!  Cdtew  (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

White Coke
Hi! I just remembered White Coke DYK I nominated quite a while ago and thought to ask you if that one falls into the scope of WP:MILHIST or not. Judging from the topic, I'd say no, but thought to ask just to be on a safe side.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday. This is quite an interesting article, I'd never heard of White Coke before and the historical background is fascinating (especially for an article about a soft drink). Whilst it doesn't seem to fit neatly into MILHISTs scope (see ), given that some of the key players (Zhukov, Eisenhower and Clark) were senior military figures during World War II and the immediate post-war period—not to mention the unfolding global political situation at the time—it might fall under 2. Military personnel, including both leaders and common soldiers, as well as other people involved in military affairs. Although adding too many project tags to an article can sometimes draw the crabs personally I don't think there would be an issue with tagging it for MILHIST. Anotherclown (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, tagged as advised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Article title
Hi! I just had a go at expanding and referencing the United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation, a UN peacekeeping mission article. There's just one thing: the mission was officially called "United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia" as per UNSC Resolution 981. Admittedly, the "in Croatia" bit is usually forgotten since the established acronym is "UNCRO". I'm not bent on changing the title, but I'm wondering if that should be done or not.

On a side note, I got around to trimming more of the "Background" section of the Operation Winter '94 as promised in the ACR. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday - I believe the appropriate policy is probably WP:COMMONNAME. What name do the majority of sources use? That said the full name United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia may be less ambiguous so changing it to its official name would probably makes sense even if its not used in the majority of sources. To be honest as long as there is a reliable source which verifies that its official name included "in Croatia" then I would support moving it. Maybe just pose the question on the talk page and if no one objects in a few days just be bold and move it. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I posted such a note. I fixed the reference in the ACR too, and in terms of the last paragraph of the Background section, I noticed that Peacemaker started a review of the same article and posted there asking him to comment on the issue. I trust that if he supports, along with you and Errant, removal of the paragraph (I don't mind removing it), there'd be a sufficient consensus regardless of the GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli and other random thoughts
Hi, mate, I hope you were able to catch up with some mates today. I had a quite Anzac Day: went to the local service, but it kind of doesn't feel like Anzac Day without your mates around. It would be better to be in Brisbane. Anyway, I felt compelled to have a go at working on the Gallipoli campaign article. If you are keen, I could use a hand. I figure that the steps to fix it might be: (1) add references, (2) work on the content/narrative, (3) start fixing the formatting to make everything consistent and then (4) ask for a peer review. I don't have designs on GA or A, but just want to improve it so it is reasonably functional. It is currently assessed as B class, but it is more likely start or C-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday. March through I with Bn, otherwise low key for the same reasons. Working tomorrow too so got to take it easy. Sure will have a look at the article over the weekend and see what I can do. Certainly would be good to get it to a presentable standard. Anotherclown (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. The casualty table in the article is a nightmare. The figures are cited to rather poor websites and other sources, and doesn't seem to match most of the sources I have (for instance Carlyon). Was thinking of completely redoing it using a single source rather the multiple sources which mix high and low estimates of questionable qlty. Thoughts? Probably should pose this question on the article talk page I guess as I imagine a change like that probably needs to be discussed first. Anotherclown (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've got no objections to it, but you are right, on this sort of article it is probably best discussed first on the talk page. Can I suggest then, that we leave it to last. That way, it will allow us to bring the rest of the article up to scratch before what might be a potentially distracting conversation? Thanks for the help, by the way. Still a lot to go, but if we can keep at it, we might be home by Christmas... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep good idea. Anotherclown (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW I have reassessed as C class. You're rights its definitely not yet a B. Anotherclown (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I have casualty statistics recorded in the OH if that's any help.Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - this article needs citations to high qlty RS to replace some of poor qlty websites and Encarta refs so pls feel free to add them if you have time. Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday AR. One of the citations says "Broadbent 2013", did you mean "Broadbent 2005"? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you guys think about adding a "units" field to the infobox? I think it could work well as a mini order of battle and is used in many other articles. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, given the relatively small number of divisions involved.Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * AR - BTW I added a source for this image: File:Dardanelles_fleet-2.jpg. Used google image search here (click the camera in the right corner of search field, then enter the URL). Still a few to go if you are interested. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I had a go, but couldn't seem to get it to work. It kept saying that the url didn't relate to an image. I must be being dense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blast. The issue is the url must be to the file, not to the image page - not sure how to find the direct url for a wikifile. Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok so there might be a formula we can reverse engineer but I'm a bit too dense. The permanent link for this file is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg/926px-French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg. Not sure if that helps though. If you put this into the Google image search it will come up with results. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I tried that. It still didn't like it. Hmm... frustrating. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Had a bit of a break through. Found a source for File:French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg . I've added what details I could but can you pls have a look? I believe it will need a US tag lest it raise the ire of the oxygen-thieving image police. I've got no idea about such things, wonder if you could add the appropriate tag if you know it? I think the rest of the images should have the req'd info or did I miss one? Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I've added a tag that I think should do the trick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dare we nominate for GA? Or do you want to put up for peer review first? Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, probably best to do the peer review first, I think. I'm not really an expert on the era, so it would be good to get more input. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, the peer review is here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

 * Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thanks very much for the Military history service award, it's really most appreciated! Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks again for this —Cliftonian (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gallipoli Campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attrition (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) 11:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian contribution to UNTAG
Dear AnotherClown,

Thank you very much for your thought provoking and detailed comments on the Australian contribution to UNTAG. I have pretty well covered all of your comments and suggestions. Interested to hear your thoughts.


 * The comments about Cuban involvement in particular were complex to bring in, so I ended up having to largely rework large parts of the introduction. I had hoped to keep that complexity out of the article, focussing instead on the overall picture inside Namibia and Australians. However you are correct in that the force of 25,000 Cubans (something like 500,000 Cubans over 20+ years) had a dramatic impact on the region and needed explanation. I don't recall that the Cuban's ever rated a mention during the mission, and there is no mention of them in the sources, but they were an important factor in the background. The intro now explains this far better.
 * The comment about making it a more neutral POV with respect to the South Africans was also well made. I have now corrected this in several areas giving credit where credit was due. They did consent to the operation, they ran the election and they disbanded the feared Koevoet force. And, when they were not throwing grenades out of planes at us, they were quite friendly.

Thanks in anticipation. Rgds, AWHS (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They do sound like fun! Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. AWHS (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Long Tan
Top shelf! About time this article got rewritten. 49.176.68.71 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you masked stranger! Quite a lot of editors have worked on it over the years. Its still a work in progress but I hope to take it to GA one day. Occasionally it attracts a bit of attention though. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancre 1917
Thanks for taking a look, it's been becalmed for a couple of months so I put it on slighty unfinished, the last section is going to have some narrative of the I Anzac Corps so there will be a contrast between the successful and unsuccessful attacks during the German preliminary withdrawals, which will dovetail with the narrative of Alberich on the Hindenburg Line page.Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

AFC links
Oh mate, tks for doing all those links to the new AFC article... I was planning to do so eventually (as most of the articles requiring the link are probably mine!) -- did you get 'em all, 'cos happy to take over if you didn't... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. I went through the first 500 that came up in the search engine so there is probably about 1,500 left to check/add/amend. Anotherclown (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, how did you do the search? I only got about 240 occurrences and each one I randomly checked (many of course had appeared on my watchlist) was done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try this link: . Hopefully that should work. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, forgot to mention I tried this search day before yesterday and I think you must've got everything -- I'd just looked for "Australian Flying Corps" to get my 240 results (which were all done); your search finds everything with "Australian" + "Flying" + "Corps", so it's a longer list but randomly checking articles throughout they all seemed done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Must have been more efficient than I thought! Cheers Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

An award

 * Thanks mate. Anotherclown (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
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.


 * Gallipoli Campaign order of battle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to 13th Division and 11th Division (United Kingdom)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

M'Cmunn
I copied Macmunn from the OH, which is also found here http://www.greatwardustjackets.co.uk/page52.html but I qon't quibble.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith. I noticed though that you used "MacMunn" in the references section so I checked World Cat and that's what they used . Happy either way as long as its consistent so pls feel free to change it back if you think it best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to copy the usage in the source but pre-war ones aren't as systematic as now so I probably noticed after I'd put the book reference in. I prefer the worldcat usage anyway. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign order of battle
G'day Anotherclown, well done on creating the Gallipoli Campaign order of battle. I was wondering your thoughts on the supporting Naval elements and whether they need to be mentioned? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Yes definitely think naval forces should be added (and more detail on the air elements). If you are interested in doing this pls feel free. I'm quite busy at work ATM so I'm not likely to get around to doing anytime soon it I'm afraid. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Suitable title
Hi! I'm uncertain what would be an appropriate title for the Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against Croatia in 1991. Since the offensive consisted of numerous engagements, I was thinking about "JNA campaign in Croatia". Would that be fine or is use of the acronym problematic? Sources refer to the campaign in descriptive terms i.e. Yugoslav People's Army strategic offensive against Croatia, or less frequently as the JNA strategic offensive in Croatia. As far as I can tell, there is no proper name for the campaign. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday again. The appropriate policy is here: WP:MILMOS. I didn't see anything on using acronyms, but it does seem like it would be problematic to me. I admit to not being too familiar with the protagonists or events in question but would something like "Yugoslav strategic offensive in Croatia" work? Just a suggestion. Might be a good idea to pose this question on the MILHIST talkpage to get a wider consensus from more knowledgeable editors than me though. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll definitely post on the MILHIST project talk page then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed!
Hey Anotherclown, how are you? Anyway I have recently been doing a major revamp of the article Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. The article deserves much more attention than it currently gets, and any advice on improving it would be greatly appreciated. If you could please tell me how you drew your digital maps it would be great thanks, I really wanna draw up the Battles of the Hawkesbury, Parramatta, Appin, as well as the Nepean campaign. I think it's really important to help develop this article as it is one of the few fullscale wars that occurred on Australian soil. Thanks again and please respond to this on my talkpage!--Collingwood26 (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Collingwood26 and hello again. Maps can indeed convey a lot of information to a reader so if you can mark one up they are a really big help. I am not a graphic designer though so I have always struggled but after a lot of trying I settled on the Inkscape program (get a mouse if you don't have one because the swipe pad on a laptop is painful to use). There is an excellent tutorial on map making for military topics here WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating maps which includes links to tools and some templates. Alternatively if you are really stuck you can create a request at Graphics Lab/Map workshop and hopefully someone may be able to draw one up for you if you have a source map. One final resort is to look at articles and see what users created the maps and then approach them directly to see if they are interested in illustrating the article in question. I believe User:SpoolWhippets may be a professional working in this area and he has previously taken requests from some users so he might be able to help. He has done some really invaluable work (see Battle of Bita Paka, Arnold Potts, Battle of Milne Bay, Battle of Wareo and several other articles in the Bougainville Campaign for instance). He isn't very active as he may be busy in real life but it might be worth a shot approaching him directly if you don't have any luck either doing it yourself or requesting at the Graphics lab. Best of luck. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol I did say reply on my talk page haha only because I tend to forget things but nvm, thankyou soo much for the help I think i might give a crack at drawing them up myself as a lot of the info comes from books and not maps already made :P Is the Inkscape program for free?--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes pretty sure its free. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Anotherclown, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

PD-1923
Hi! I see that you have added PD-1923 to a few images (meaning that they were published somewhere before 1923, for example in a book, newspaper or magazine), but you have not provided any information on how to verify this. In which book, newspaper or magazine were they published before 1923? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All images clearly predate this. Tag added on the basis of the implied claim made by the original uploader - I'm not in a position to validate that though, perhaps they can. Trying to help inexperienced users rather than just deleting their content. If you think this is incorrect then feel free to remove. I couldn't care less, although you clearly do. Anotherclown (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They were clearly taken before 1923, but there is no indication about where the images were first published. If they weren't published before 1923, then the tag isn't correct and shouldn't be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't an invitation for a discussion. Anotherclown (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557925485 your edit] to ANZAC Mounted Division 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].
 * Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

1st Division
G'day, mate, not sure if you have any refs that might be application to 1st Division (Australia), but if you do would you mind taking a look? There are a couple of citation needed tags I haven't been able to deal with. It could also do with an image from World War II if any can be found. Anyway, I'm away for the next couple of weeks so I'll come back to it then. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy, found the missing citations in Bean's Anzac to Amiens and have added them now. Will see what I can do about an image. Anotherclown (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stalemate in Southern Palestine
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Backlog Drive
AnotherClown,

How long is the backlog drive good for? I may need to get a couple of books from Amazon. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday again Adam. It goes until 30 Jun so there is quite a bit of time. Best of luck! Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation quality
Quick question, are printed citations preferred to online ones? Order of battle for the Battle of the Somme has a lot of online ones and I stumbled on Miles, W. (1938). Official History of the War, Military Operations, France and Belgium 1916, Maps and Appendices (IWM & Battery Press 1994 ed.). London: Macmillan. ISBN 0-89839-207-1. while tinkering with Delville Wood order of battle (My first attempt at an OOB page using the material from Battle of Delville Wood.) so I could replace the interweb references quite easily if desired. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Keith. I think it probably depends on the qlty of the online source but yes probably. According to WP:SOURCE articles should use: "...reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..." and "...Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...". The official history would certainly meet the requirements of WP:RS and if it was used to replace low qlty websites then I think that would be a definite improvement. I personally prefer printed sources to websites because the requirements of publishing generally ensure they are more reliable than a website which nearly anyone can set up. Interestingly though in the past I have had some editors criticize my use of "offline" sources because it is harder to verify the information they are supporting (unless you obtain a copy of the book used etc). Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, considering the effort the writers put in I didn't want to tread on toes but Guillemont is still a bit of a headache so I fancy a change....Keith-264 (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Anotherclown (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 5 Squadron RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supermarine Seagull (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) 12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montagnard (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) 11:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData
Hey Anotherclown

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Hamel
G'day, mate, not sure if you are working on anything, but if you aren't you might be interested in this article: Battle of Hamel. It needs a lot of work, but with a bit of collaboration, it probably wouldn't take much effort to produce something decent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)