User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive3

DYK for 47th Battalion (Australia)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Travis
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations for Battle of Mons
I'm wondering what the reason is for changing the page numbers given in the citations on the Battle of Mons page (particularly the citations to Ernest W. Hamilton's book). I gave those page numbers when I wrote the relevant sections, and unless the problem is that I was using a different version of the book from you, I'm fairly confident they're correct. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Groundsquirrel. I'm sure they are correct. I believe that it is a different version of the book. I am trying to bring the article up to B class standard, which requires all information to be cited. In order to do this I have had to find citations for some of the material that wasn't cited. I have the Hurst and Blackett version from 1916. I realised that there was a discrepancy in the page numbers between the two versions when I started adding in the missing citations, but the only way I could think to not make it confusing for readers was to change them all to the version I could verify. If I used page numbers from my version and mixed them with the page numbers from the other version I don't have it would be confusing to readers when they come check the information. Apologies if I've stepped on your toes. If you want I can stop what I'm doing. Just let me know, okay? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I have found another issue with book versions, that you might be able to help with. Do you know it if is the 2004 version of Barbara Tuchman's book that is used for citation # 38 (Tuchman, pp. 306–307.), or the 1962 version? I found a page number (255) for the sentence "First Army had the greatest offensive power, with a density of about 18,000 men per mile of front, or about 10 per metre – higher than any other German army". However, it is the 1962 version on Google books and I can't preview the 2004 version. If Citation # 38 is also the 1962 page number, then I suggest that we change the version in the References section to being the 1962 version so as to avoid confusion. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Final question, I couldn't find a citation for this sentence: "The commune of Mons has created a battlefield tour. Maps and guidebooks can be obtained from the Tourist Office in the Grand Place". Do you have anything that could cover this? If not, I propose either simply removing it (it is probably not that important), or to comment it out until something can be found. Other than that, the article is probably ready for a B class review at WP:MHA. Can you please check that you are happy with any of the changes I have made before I request the assessment? If you're not happy, just let me know and I'll step back from the article. I'm not that attached to it. Have a good one. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about stepping on toes. Your edits are good ones, I just wanted to know why you were changing the citations.  I'm afraid that I don't recall which edition of Tuchman's book I used, so I'm not sure what you should do about the reference.  I also don't have any information about the Mons battlefield tour - that sentence was just something left over from a previous version of the page, which I thought would probably be harmless to keep.  If you think it should go, though, I don't have a problem with that.  Thanks for working the article up to B-class.  Have a good one! Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the point about the 4.5s and adding in the ref. I've asked the team at WP:MHA to take a look at the article for B class. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

John-the-younger
Your opinion is solicited at Talk:John Whitelaw (general). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added my two cents on the talk page. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Contest question
I put the Battle of Piave River (1809) in the July WPMILHIST contest. In fact, I already updated the article, but I did so on 5 July. I'm not sure if this is within the rules. I asked Dank but he referred me to you. If I'm bending the rules, please let me know and I'll withdraw it. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Djmaschek. The article is fine to be entered in the contest for July. There's no dramas with that. Its best, however, if you get an independent reviewer to assess the articles that you put up for the contest. You can request assessment by adding them to the list at WP:MHA. This is no big deal, however, and I agree with your assessment. If you were able to add a few more citations (at least one per paragraph), it could probably be a B class article. This would get you even more points for the contest. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed your "citation needed" notes and replaced them with more citations and notes. One of my observations, "hilly to north of ..." was based on looking at Google Earth. I put that in a note, as opposed to a citation. My battle map and Geography section was based on Rothenberg's map (now cited more fully) and Google Earth (how do I cite Google Earth?). You may want to see how I handled this stuff. If you see any problems or have any suggestions, please point them out. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made a couple of minor tweaks and added some comments on the talk page. It looks quite good. I've updated the assessment to B class. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
Hi I am asking what do you think of adding Pope Benedict XVI military service to his infobox. He is a WWII veteren and I wanted to put it up. There is a discussion on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI about putting it on. I wanted to see what you think of it since youra Military History cordinator. Aslo we cant find his rank in the german army. Spongie555 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Spongie555, I've added my opinions to the talkpage. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I read it. I think they should just put a small box under the infobox like other famous people with there service. But thats my opnion. Spongie555 (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Corps of Staff Cadets
Nice work creating this article. It's stuff like not having an article on the corps ranked first in Australian Army Order of Precedence which amuses me when there are discussions of how hard it's becoming to find new articles to start or expand! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick. I'm hoping to expand it over time, but I'm heading back to uni tomorrow so my time will be limited for the next five months unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Plassey
Regarding more images for this article, I found many on this site. However, the terms of use mention - I think this is not agreeable to Wikipedia standards. Also, do you think the article is GA material? Cheers! --MT (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The documents may be used solely by you (and your students, if any) for your own personal informational, educational, or other non-commercial purposes.
 * You may not alter any of the documents found at this web site nor attempt to pass off any documents found at this web site as your own.
 * You may not use, copy, or distribute any of the documents within this web site for any commercial purpose, unless D. & T. Roth have given you prior written consent to do so.
 * You probably can't use the actual images on the website, but you can go to their ultimate sources and scan those if they fall into certain criteria. To determine whether or not the images can be used, you would need to go back to the original sources for the images, which are probably the books themselves to determine who the actual author is. Some of the books are quite old and it is possible that because of this the images might be able to be used. It requires quite a bit of investigation, though, for the specific images. Image copyright tags/All has a list of licencing tags that can be used. The ones that would most likely be relevant would be the Public domain ones in the General section and the Art section, also possibly the UK government. For instance, usually if an author died more than 70 years ago, the image would be in the public domain. If an item was published in the US before 1923, it is usually in the public domain. If it is a UK government photograph that was produced before 1957, it is in the public domain. In regards to GA status, I'd say it is close, but I don't really know about the content. My advice is to give the peer review a bit of time to run and then once it is concluded put it up for a GA review. You don't have anything to lose. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback
I'm soliciting your comments & opinions here. (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

2 Generals with the Same name in English
I need to create articles about 2 Generals, Ma Dunjing and Ma Dunjing. The problem is, that they both have the same name. And they are identical in other aspects too, both being muslim, and being related to each other. So i have no idea what to put in parentheses next to the name.

the name is different in Chinese, but i don't see how thats going to help me write their name in english when the romanization is the same.

If this helps come up with a solution, their fathers were Ma Hongkui and Ma Hongbin. Should i create it like this? Ma Dunjing (Ma Hongkui's son), Ma Dunjing (Ma Hongbin's son). Дунгане (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, talk-page stalking here. What about using their dates of birth and death? Thus you'd have Ma Dunjing (1800-1880) and Ma Dunjing (1900-1980)? Obviously I have no idea what their date of birth and deaths are, but there we go. Skinny87 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would have been my suggestion too. The birth and death date solution has been used before. For instance John Whitelaw (1921–2010). No dramas with the talkpage stalking, either, Skinny. Sometimes it helps to get a second opinion! Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Hongorai River‎
Great work on Battle of Hongorai River‎, I have finished the review now and promoted to GA. Just one suggestion though which I have left on the review page. Please have a look when you can. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll add that in tonight. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

U-30
Hey thanks for reviewing this :) I'm going to be away for a few days though (I'm likely getting my wisdom teeth removed) and I'll be unable to edit for a few days due to RL as well. I'd like to work on this article and get it done in 7 days but I'm scared that this is not possible. Can you extend the deadline a few more days for me so I can finish this? Thanks,--White Shadows I ran away from you 15:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine, I have no dramas with that. Let's say on hold until 31 July and we can re-assess from there? Good luck with the teeth, too. It's been a few years since I had mine out, but I can still remember it! :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)--White Shadows I ran away from you 00:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945)
Thanks for the Support! '  Perseus 71  talk 20:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas at all. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Indian Air Force
Thanks a lot for your detailed peer review. I have made a lot of changes to the article and I would really appreciate it if you could go through it once again and comment on it, if you get the time. Gremaldin (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I haven't gotten back to you for a while. Quite busy offline at the moment. Anyway, I took a look again yesterday. It is coming along well, I think. Just watch out for the citations. They should go after punctuation. I moved a few for you but there might still be some as I was doing it very quickly. Also, there are a few single sentence paragraphs, particularly in the Helicopter and UAV sections which really should be consolidated or expanded. Good work so far, BTW. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments and help. I'll see to it that all citations are after the punctuation. I'll try to expand the single sentence paragraphs or I'll just join them. I just hope I didn't bother you. Thanks once again!! --Gremaldin (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No you didn't bother me. Keep up the good work. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)



Gremaldin has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thanks, although I will need to go for a run now. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

review of 206th Field Artillery Regiment (United States)
Would you mind reviewing 206th Field Artillery Regiment (United States) again. I have made several additions and corrections. Damon.cluck (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Damon. I've taken a quick look and made a few tweaks. Looks quite good, but I wasn't able to read the whole article unfortunately. I'm quite busy offline at the moment. Regardless, I think it is coming along quite well. I added a few "citation needed tags". If you can add citations where I've placed these tags, I feel it will meet the referencing criteria for a B class rating. Well done and keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Damon.cluck (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Sungei Koemba
Hey mate, I have put up a couple of GA noms up (foolishly) and was hoping you might be able to have a go at reviewing Battle of Sungei Koemba for me? Of course if you're too busy that's fine, but I'm hoping not to have to wait a decade given how long the queue is currently! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the way. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate. Actually this was one of my first wiki articles (not the first but nearly). As such there is a bit that needed doing to it. I thought I had got most of the issues (hence the huge list of edits) but you seem to have found a whole pile more! Its actually a day off for my team here - first full one ever! The Slovaks cooked a traditional meal (Gholash - actually quite tasty despite the name), it was kind of a farewell thing for me. Quite nice really. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like they've earned it. You're probably sick of mess food of dubious provenance and CRPs by now. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done the initial review if you want to take a look. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I think I have dealt with all the issues raised. Thank you for a comprehensive review. Anotherclown (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Looks good. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, I appreciate it. I hope all is well with you and uni/family/hip isn't getting you down! Beers are on me when I get back... BTW Leiza and I are planning a short overseas break for a week after I get back (may be Vanuatu or New Caledonia). We never got a honeymoon so hopefully I can make this happen as I kind of owe it to her. Got to move quickly with paperwork etc at work though. We will definitely have time to catch up (drink) before I go though (they are making us do a week of half days when we get back... 'decompression', AIRN.... snore) and there is always the weekend. Guess that's the good thing about being posted back to Brisbane next year also. Anotherclown (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Embarrassed - I just saw what I did with the 3RAR abbrev! Fixed the issue, then rewrote the lead omitting what I had just fixed. Thanks for sorting it out again, very astute. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas. The holiday sounds like a good idea. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

British Commandos
Thanks for the support in the A Class review. Just need some other now. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, Jim. If it hasn't had three reviewers after seven days, a note can be dropped on the task force and project talk page requesting more reviewers to stop by. Also,Dank is a good copy editor who does good work with ACRs and they might be someone to drop a line to and see if they wouldn't mind taking a look. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

British Rupert
Hi Did you ever come across BritishRupert does not say much but has a hell of a head for heights.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's awesome, Jim! I love it! BritishRupert appears to have had a slightly more illustrious career than myself. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Francis Pegahmagabow
Hello. You recently did a good article review for this article. The article included a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International, but unfortunately Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for pointing this out to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gunther Specht
Hi !

Thanks for the extensive corrections and assessing for B Class. I know you are still making corrections to this article. Like I said in the request for B Class review, my goal is GA class. So given its current state, do you think this article is ready for GA class review ? If its not, can you give me some pointers or areas needing improvement ? P.S. Thanks for the support on A class review of Organization of Luftwaffe. TIA '  Perseus 71  talk 03:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Perseus. I've made a couple more tweaks to the article and have left some suggestions/points to consider on the talk page. Hope this helps. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Points all on the Talk page. Will take care of them shortly. Thanks once again. '  Perseus 71  talk 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, good luck with the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

6th Battalion
Passed - good work. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review! Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

2/48th Battalion
Hi mate, I have done a bit of a copy edit on the article but want to confirm that I haven't muffed one of your paras. I reworded the first para in the El Alamein section, in which you wrote:

"After Tobruk, the 9th Division was sent to Palestine and Syria to train and rest. Under their new commander Lieutenant-Colonel Heathcote Hammer—who had taken over after Windeyer had stepped up to take over the 20th Brigade—the 2/48th proceeded to train in high terrain and temperatures.[6] The 26th Brigade was moved south before being called up and rushed to the First Battle of El Alamein in early July 1942. On 1 July, Axis forces commanded by Erwin Rommel launched an attack British 8th Army line and on 7 July the 9th Division received its orders to attack; they were to traverse the coastline and capture a ridge (Trig 33) north of the 'Tel el Eise' station.[1]"

I changed the last sentence to: "On 1 July, Axis forces commanded by Erwin Rommel launched an attack on the British Eighth Army line and on 7 July the 9th Division was ordered into the attack, as part of which the 2/48th was subsequently ordered to traverse the coastline and capture the Trig 33 ridge north of the "Tel el Eise" station.[1]" Is this a correct interpretation of what you meant? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Thanks for your work. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GAN
Hey I noticed that you have put a GAN of mine on a German U-boat on hold. I just got back from a 12 hour trip from Montreal tonight and I have not been editing for the past 4 days due to my vacation there. Do you mind if you "reset" the GA review of that article for me so I still have 7 days to fix the issues that you added? Thanks,--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 02:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes that's fine. I'm not really a stickler for the seven day rule. So long as progress is being made, I'm happy to let the review run for a while. Just let me know how long you need. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1st Armoured Regiment (Australia)
Hi mate. I have just finished expanding the article (I think). Per your suggestions I have added a bit more on WW2 from Hopkins. I'm hoping you could give it a quick proof read for gross errors as I'm getting too close to the article. I will have a look at Aitape-Wewak campaign soonish. Got to go for a run now though. Cheers again. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. It looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of tweaks and inserted a couple of general refs to give a couple of points a bit more context. Please check that you agree with what I've added. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, they are excellent additions. I went through Aitape-Wewak and have assessed it as a B. Very impressed, although there is room for some further expansion if you want to take it to GA and above. Good to see this article finally get a rework. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all with 1AR. Cheers for your tweak to A-W campaign, I'm hoping to work on the New Britain campaign article soon, too, as it is in need of some work. Come to think of it, most of the "unnecessary" campaign articles need work. Cheers and I hope the BFA goes well. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh... don't remind me... I can't be bothered... Anotherclown (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Theres a bit of discussion going on at Talk: 1st Armoured Regiment (Australia). This unit has a complicated lineage to say the least and I have always been a little uncomfortable with how I dealt with it. A new user has raised a couple of (mostly) valid points and I have had a bit of a chop at rectifying the issues. Since I think this may have been a drive-by though I was wondering if you could review the article again and my changes and see what you think? May be more drastic steps are required though, like splitting the article altogether (least preferred from my point of view), but will I do it if required. Anyway when you get a chance can you please have a look and let me know what you think? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. This one might be tricky though. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia
Greetings! We had an edit conflict. Given that your edit looked automated, and mine was completely manual, I effectively "undid" you edit so that I could implement mine. Before you re-implement your edit, could you cast your eye over my changes and "improve" them? (Please?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, no dramas. It happens sometime. ;-) The Advisor program is partially automated, in that it just suggests changes, doesn't actually implement without human intervention. I'm on the run at the moment, but will stop back tonight and take a look. Ack to your below and same as this post, (i.e. I'll look tonight). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No only no dramas, but no urgency, either. But thanks for such a prompt acknowledgement. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Replication
"We" seem to have a number of "very similar, but slighly different" articles. I'm "a bit uncomfortable" about it, but not uncomfortable enough to start making amalgamations and step on toes. What are your thoughts? Articles include: And there's another one that I can't remember the name of at the moment. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia
 * Australian Honours Order of Precedence
 * Australian campaign medals


 * Hi, Pdfpdf. Okay, I've had a bit of a look at the three articles. I'd say that the topics are sufficiently different that they could stand alone. For instance the campaign medals article is quite specific (i.e. they are just the list of campaign medals as opposed to gallantry or service medals, etc.). The AHS Order of Precedence article is listed in order of precedence and therefore serves a purpose beyond that which is provided by the Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia article which (should be) more of a overview article. Having said all of this, all three of these articles have issues that might be contributing to the perception that they are duplicating each other. For instance:
 * in the Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia article, the lead needs to be expanded and should not begin with a bolded Australian Honours System (bold in a lead indicates the title of the article, hence in this case it should be something like: ...Orders, decorations and medals of Australia... ). Additionally, there is an error in the title. There shouldn't be a comma before the "and" as it is not grammatically correct (but that is very much a side point). There is also an issue with the level of the headings used, i.e. Awards should be a level 2 heading, while the Order of Australia, etc that is below that should be a lesser level (e.g. level 3 heading) to show that they are part of the Awards section overall;
 * in the Australian Honours Order of Precedence a lead needs to be written introducing the article and explaining that it is only listing the order of precedence of the Australian Honours System;
 * the lead of the Australian campaign medals also needs to be rewritten to clarify that the article is only a list of Australian campaign medals, and in doing so, make a distinction between campaign medals and other sorts of medals.
 * Anyway, that's my take on the matter. I hope this is helpful. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone once said: "Never ask a question unless it will give you the answer you want".
 * Your answer is exactly what I asked for, but not what I wanted!!! I guess I've only go myself to blame for that!
 * Yes, I agree with almost all of it, and am ambivalent about the bits I don't agree with.
 * But I will comment on one thing:
 * There is also an issue with the level of the headings used, i.e. Awards should be a level 2 heading, while the Order of Australia, etc that is below that should be a lesser level (e.g. level 3 heading) to show that they are part of the Awards section overall.
 * Yes, I expected that would be a problem, but unrealistcally hoped it wouldn't. Ho hum!
 * I feel "Order of Australia, etc" should be level 2 headings, which means "Awards" would need to be a level 1 heading, (which, of course, will never happen). I don't see an obvious solution. As I said, "Ho hum ... "
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. How very rude of me! My apologies. Yes, your answer is exactly what I asked for, and hence VERY useful.
 * I therefore conclude that your suggested changes are a MUCH better solution to my "uneasyness" than amalgamation.
 * So, I guess, in that respect, I DID get the answer I wanted!! Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No dramas. I knew what you meant. :-) The issue with the heading levels is very much a minor point and I'm happy to leave as is if you'd rather not change it. Ultimately, the most important points are the tweaks to the leads to clarify what the articles are covering. Anyway, let me know if you want me to take a look again. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew what you meant. - Mmmm. That probably means you're at least two steps ahead of me! '-)
 * The issue with the heading levels is very much a minor point - Agreed.
 * Ultimately, the most important points are the tweaks to the leads to clarify what the articles are covering. - Strongly agreed.
 * Anyway ...  - Thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WW1 Battle of Romani
Hi, I'm writing to you as a Coordinator of the History Project and would be grateful for your advice.

I've got some information which is more or less a side issue - the 42nd Infantry Division on 5 August 1916 the second day of battle, when ordered to move forward suffered terribly from thirst; there are published descriptions of personal accounts both by and individual infantryman and camel transport personnel who followed the division with water and a later reminiscence which I would refer to. The two infantry divisions were blamed for their inability to move sufficiently quickly and the Ottoman Army was able to get away, but this interpretation does not take into account the conditions - summer in the Sinai. The NZds also suffered from the conditions during their first reconnaissance in the desert in early spring. I'm not sure whether this information should be incorporated directly into the Battle of Romani page or the 42nd Infantry Division page - or a bit in both?

The other thing was that I would like to create a new page the 'WW1 Egyptian Camel Transport Corps and the Egyptian Labour Corps' but I don't have that much information. Is it ok to create a short page which may grow in the future? --RoslynSKP (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See 'User:RoslynSKP/Egyptian labour corps'--RoslynSKP (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the Egyptian Labour Corps article would be fine. There are some style issues with the example shown, but they are not major and could easily be ironed out. Overall, I'd say it was perfect for an article, so long as the sourcing is there (which it appears to be). There is currently an example of a similar unit here: Korean Service Corps, which is only a stub. If you are going to call the article Egyptian Labour Corps, though, it would probably need to be separate to Egyptian Camel Transport Corps, I think, because they appear to be two different organisations.


 * In regards to the first question regarding the 42nd Div on the second day of the battle, I think you would be fine to mention it in both the article about the division and in the battle. Currently the article about the division is very light on the details about its involvement at Romani, so that section would need to be expanded a bit. If you are adding it to the battle article, though, you need to be careful not to place too much weight on the subject though. This is covered in the policy of WP:UNDUE, but essentially you just need to be mindful of not dealing with a minor incident in terms that outweigh other incidents that might be more significant. Does that help? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's all a great help. Much appreciated.--RoslynSKP (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability guide
Would you have any objection to posting your sandbox work-in-progress to WT:MHSTT? We're trying to get the think tank off the ground and encourage its use, and your proposed guidelines are an ideal topic to get us all started :) EyeSerene talk 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done that now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

39th Infantry Division (United States)
Do you mind taking a look at 39th Infantry Division (United States) when you have time. I think it is past Stub class at this point. Thanks Damon.cluck (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Damon. Good work so far. I've taken a look and made a few tweaks (please check that you are happy with them). I've assessed it as a start class article and left some comments on the talk page regarding possible future improvements. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I really appreciate the time you put in to fixing other people's messes.  Keep up the good work!Damon.cluck (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, happy to help. Keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian fighting knife ?
Hi there I can remember seeing/reading many years ago an Australian fighting knife/dagger that had a knuckleduster for a handle. Must have been something like the one on this image on the Sgts belt. Do you know anything about it, was an official issue and if so does it have an official name. ?--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no I've not heard of that before. It might have been something issued to the Australian commando units&mdash;the independent companies and commando squadrons&mdash;but I'm not sure. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing something years ago, then it cropped up again a couple of years ago on the disambig page for X as "the X", fullname "the X fighting knife". I'll see if I can locate it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was quicker & easier than I thought it would be. And, unfortunately, also less useful.
 * I'm now reminded I came across it when I was looking at "fairbairn" (in particular, Fairbairn Airbase, RAAF Base Fairbairn, Defence Establishment Fairbairn, Fairbairn (Business Park) and Fairbairn, Canberra, at different times, all refer to the same piece of land in Canberra named after James Fairbairn.
 * Sadly, I don't think the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife is what you're looking for.
 * Sorry, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks there is the 1917 Trench knife on the web, which is probably what I was reading about. But you know what its like I was expecting something like Knife Hand MK IV.(II) --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You will not believe after adding the above, I wondered what we had for 1917 Trench knife and lo and behold there this with the knife in the image. Mark I trench knife --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Boom boom! "Stranger than fiction"!! Glad you found what you wanted. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's just one question left, which idiot added a knuckle duster to a knife, if you close enough to punch why not just use the knife ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's why the Fairbairn-Sykes doesn't have one? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Us Yanks also had one, the M1918 Trench Knife (see here) as well as the Brits (BC-41, same location). Apparently they were fairly common in WWI.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dec 64 SV coup
Thanks, I've attended to your comments  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  02:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, I've responded on the ACR. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pity about being disqualified, I wasn't aware of the rule that I had to request an assessment, I thought the judge would just do it, I hadn't expanded it since the deadline either  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, YM. My take is that they need to be re-assessed in the scoring period, after all that is the standard applied to GAs, As, and FAs that are entered. If they are brought up to that standard in June, but not awarded that status until July the points for the contest can't be back dated for the June contest. In regards to Bs and below, I suppose it is possible for the judge to assess after the period has closed but when it is just one judge doing all the verifying (i.e. in this case me), it makes it so much easier on them if all they have to do is check the diffs of the talk page with the assessment, and quickly check the article to make sure that it is indeed a correct assessment, rather than do a full B class review and assessment on every article (i.e. this month we had 66 articles, I'd be hard pressed to review all of them properly in time for the next contest. As it is it took me a whole day to verify all the entries for July). That is the way I've done it the past three months, but if this is not the correct way I apologise. Nevertheless, I feel it would create too much of a burden on the co-ordinator compiling the results of the contest if they were required to be the main judge of article quality also. Regarding your articles, they are still eligible for this month's contest, and because I moved them your average for the contest isn't affected. I've had a look at one of them so far and assessed as a B, so if the others can be assessed in August there should be no dramas with them all gaining 5 or 6 points, or more if you take them to GA and beyond. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My advice with these is to request assessment at the WP:MHA page. I will take a look at a couple of them over the next couple of weeks, but I'm a bit short of time at the moment, so probably best to spread the load if possible. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * noted. Thanks for pointing out the Tucker thing....some errors/incomplete titles I made when I was not so experienced have been trnasmitted by cut and paste of the book refs over and over.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  03:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Liberia
Thanks for your ACR comments. Looks like not many people are very interested in the AFL; I really appreciate the review. Should be able to fix virtually everything pretty quickly; if you're happy, I'll insert a tickmark and let you score them out when you think they're appropriately fixed. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work on the 28 CSH - that's a real step forward. Please e-mail me. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've fired off an email. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I just need to work through them reasonably quickly - but today I'm in the middle of a stag do! Thanks for all your help, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries then. Sounds like fun, its been awhile since I went to one. The last one I went to was for a mate at RMC, which was out of necessity a rather tame affair. Nevertheless it ended in a notice to show cause (thankfully not for me, and also thankfully, successfully defended), a "crop circle" in a hedge outside a heritage listed building and a pretty bad hangover. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Future administrator nomination
Hi, If you do decide to put your hand up for the admin tools I'd be very happy to nominate you - I think that you'd make a great admin. Passing a RfA isn't particularly hard for level-headed editors like yourself and the tools are useful for day to day article editing (eg, moving articles over redirects, stopping articles on your watchlist from being repeatedly vandalised, etc). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any assistance, tips etc, please feel free to ask as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, when the time comes I'll need all the advice I can get. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do it sooner rather than later. If you look at the Signpost this week you'll see we have declining numbers of active admins and massive article growth.. give it a shot..! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Jock McLaren
First of all, thanks for your help on USS PC-1264. I am an entomologist with the University of Florida and was also in the service as a USMC officer and am a Viet Nam vet. I also feel about the service as you do. When people ask me what it was like, I reply, "Those were the best and the worst four year of my life." I am an American Civil War nut and contribute to those WP articles, but also have a great interest in WW II - particularly small unit actions. The Civil War Web site I do for a battle in Florida (Battle of Olustee), where I live, was rated as one of the Top 95 Civil War Web sites on the Internet in two editions of the book The Civil War on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites, written by the Director of the University of Virginia's Center for Digital History and the Editor of the New York Times on the Web.

As for PC-1264, I will be following your advice later this month for seeking A-class or GA status. On 23 August, the University of Florida starts its Fall semester and the roads around town are in chaos with the traffic. As a result, I always take the first week of classes off as I do not have teaching responsibilities. I'll work on getting PC-1264 into the queue then.

Regarding WW II, I have a great interest in guerrilla warfare and a number of books on that area that are hard to find. One, One-Man War, is about Jock Mclaren, who served with the 8th Australian Infantry Division at Singapore and was captured there. He escaped twice and fought with the guerrillas in the Philippines. The Japs had a price of 70,000 pesos on his head. There was no WP page on him and I started one based on the book. I have questions about some things he did, the unit he was with, and perhaps you might know the answers. Please see that Discussion page.

My mother is Australian. Dad was a radio operator/gunner on a B-24 in the U.S. 5th Air Force. They met on New Year's Eve 1944, married in April 1945, and he was shot down over China a few weeks later. Fortunately, Chinese guerrillas rescued him and the rest of the crew and he got out. Especially fortunate for me, as I was born in 1947. He died in 2002 and Mom still lives, near me. Mom's uncle was a member of the 9th Australian Infantry Division and was badly shot up at Tobruk. Mom, my brother and I, went back to Australia in 1956, where I was in the 5th grade. We stayed six months. Mom and Dad visited Australia many times, but I only got back once more in Dec72/Jan73. When I was a kid, I didn't have a Teddy Bear, but a stuffed Koala Bear. I think I knew more about Australian history and geography then I did about the U.S. until I reached high school. Take care. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Thomas. Its stories like yours that remind me how small the world really is. Regarding McLaren, I've taken a quick look and left a note on another source that could provide some details. I will have a better look tonight as I'm in class this morning. One suggestion I have for development is to add page numbers in from the book you've cited. The Australian Official Histories might also have something. They can be found at and are available online in full text. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It will be easy to add page numbers for the McLaren page, what I don't look forward to is finding all the page numbers for the Wendell Fertig page, another major effort of mine. I'll probably get to both that week that I am off. If that movie on Fertig does happen, this page will be accessed often. McLaren was in Fertig's command on Mindanao but was not always with him. Also, thanks for the other reference for McLaren. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I've found another one (even more promising for expansion purposes), which I've listed on the talk page. Good luck with your two projects and keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I did another search for info on Jock McLaren. And found some interesting stuff that I added to the External Links section:


 * 1) Surgical Drama of Mindanao Jungle Report in The Argus (Melbourne newspaper) of Robert K. McLaren removing his own appendix; receiving the U.S. Silver Star from General MacArthur.
 * 2) Episode 2: Capt. Robert McLaren M.C. Citation - Australian radio show with dramatized stories of Australian military heroes

The bit about the appendix also is mentioned in the book. The radio show can be downloaded. Did you see anything on your Australian sites about him receiving the Silver Star?

I also added to the Discussion page that he might have been born in 1898. Two 1948 newspaper articles list him as being 50 — one might have been copied from the other. This would make him older than he may have admitted, and not as young in WW I as we might have thought. Charles Parsons, from the Wendell Fertig page, also did the same thing (lied about his age) according to his son, who I corresponded with about his father. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything about a Silver Star, yet, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen of course. Very interesting indeed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I finally "completed" the Wendell Fertig article today and plan to take it for review. I finished finding all the page numbers associated with Schmidt's thesis on the guerrilla forces on Mindanao. I plan to read that again to pick up any more interesting tidbits. However, I thought you might be interested in something I did find and add to the Fertig and McLaren pages today, with the Schmidt citation. "Another ship, called The Bastard, was a 26-foot whaleboat captained by Australian Robert 'Jock' McLaren, an escaped prisoner-of-war from the Sandakan POW camp on Boreno. McLaren would sail his boat into Japanese controlled ports in broad daylight, shoot up the supply vessels and piers with machine guns and a mortar, then turn tail and run." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm hoping to get the National Archives to produce a full copy of McLaren's service record and then pull out any details I can from that to expand the article a bit, and when that happens I'll make sure to include the bit about The Bastard. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Confederate privateer
Hi, Rupert: First off, let me thank you for taking the time to assess Confederate privateer. I think I have responded correctly, and have supplied the information you requested.

I am writing, however, because of a statement you made on the Assessment page, to the effect that MilHist guidelines require a citation at the end of every paragraph. If that really is a policy, I am not about to challenge it, but I have had reasons for putting the citations in the middle. I have had later editors of articles move sentences around, leaving the footnotes at some distance from the relevant material. (They were different articles; this one has not attracted any attention that I can discern. (Sob.)) It got so that I initiated a discussion at the Village Pump; it is still going on, if you are interested. It seems interminable, and I for one would welcome a resolution. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've assessed as B class now. I think it would be a candidate to take to GA, if you were keen, but I'd suggest a peer review first, probably over at WikiProject Ships/Review, because they would have the most expertise. Regarding the placement of citations, I have a tendency to overcite, and sometimes include citations in the middle and end of a paragraph particularly if including values (like numbers of troops or dates etc) that might be open to challenge. Good work on the article, by the way, and good luck for taking it further. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Cartagena de Indias
Thank you for the B assessment on Battle of Melle - I notice you have looked in on the Cartagena article. Opinions have run strong on this battle, I've tried to maintain consensus and verifiability through extensive referencing. Any suggestions for bringing up to B?Tttom1 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tttom. It looks very good to me. I think it could be a GA or higher. Currently, though, it just needs a couple more citations to make it to B class, in my opinion. I've put the tags where I feel they are needed. If you can add them in there, I will be happy to assess as B class. Following that I'd suggest a peer review and then a Good article nomination. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, and I have added citations as you suggested. It would be terrific to get a B and then put it forward for peer review. Thanks for all your help.Tttom1 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've upgraded the assessment. Good luck with taking the article further. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy
Hi, I am about to enter into discussions here about Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy. In my opinion the lead is misleading at it talks about Royal Navy first? Your opinion as a "expert" would be appreciated. You may leave comments on my talkpage or User_talk:Epipelagic. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

British Commonwealth - FYI
Ian & "Rupert": I thought you might be interested in what's been going on at Talk:John Whittle and User talk:Abecedare. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pdfpdf, looking at the talk page of the article concerned, I think that a resolution has been reached. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On that page, yes, but a more general principle is involved; see User talk:Abecedare. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry, I'd missed that. Will take a look tonight. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment there now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Jenkins' Ferry
Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your editing locations
Hello AustralianRupert. Do you edit from any public locations or public computers? Please answer honestly, it's quite important. You can reply to me in e-mail if you'd prefer to keep your response private. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, occasionally from uni computers. Why, may I ask would that be an issue? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed you. Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've responded. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Griffith Rutherford
I've added new citations where necessary. If there are any other problems with the article, please feel free to point them out. Thanks for your time,

-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC))
 * I've assessed as B class now. Well done and keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Isandlwana
As you recommended, I have added additional citations to the article. Please take a look when you can and see if its now up to B. Thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, I've updated the assessment to B class. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Ratsua
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Bergen op Zoom
Have taken your advice and added citations. Also expanded text. A couple new refs link to terrific maps on the siege which would look great directly in the article. Any ideas? Please take another look when you can. Thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've upgraded the assessment to B class and added some suggestions for further improvements to the article's talkpage. Regarding the images, only one of the pages would load for me so I couldn't really determine much information about their sourcing. The general rules though, are that if you want to upload them, the first thing you need to consider is the copyright status. Is it in the public domain? This can be determined through reference to the source that they come from and asking questions such as: what was its year of publication, who was the author, what is the copyright law in the country from which it originates? Then you need to include the correct licence and copyright tags. A list of copyright tags can be found here: Image copyright tags/All. Other advice can be found here: Uploading images. Not sure if this helps at all, but I hope that it will. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 4 Commando
Thanks - added Dunning now - good job someone's around to check these things. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

29th/46th Battalion (Australia)
HI 29th/46th Battalion (Australia) looks like Keogh is missing fro the references. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's ironic. Cheers, I've fixed it now. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Between the two of us, we might make a good editor some day ! --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

 * Wow, I'll be leaning to the left now! Thanks. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankfully I have been working for the AEC as a temp - my leaning is flat tired :) - well done and sorry about the random tagging - hope i havent damaged any schema - btw my 'asia hangup' is in process of being exhumed - or should that be I am about to hang a big amount of editing around my shoulders so to speak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Asia SatuSuro 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas, it all looks fine to me. Looks like you will have a bit of work coming up. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed :| or should that be 8| SatuSuro 11:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NGuyen Chanh Thi
Many thanks. I've fixed up the rather obvious errors again  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist citation quality
Nice to see someone else with an eye for sub-editing! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, nice to see you back. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

THANKS
Thanks for your assistance at Talk:Battle of Ridgefield/GA1 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, happy to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1964 coup
Replied  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of Battle
Hi, I would like to add some orders of battle to the Egyptian Expeditionary Force article but because they are long lists of units and sub units, with indents to make sense of them, the editing in Wikipedia is beyond me. Can you give me some advice? Is there such a thing as a template for an order of battle? :) --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think that there is a template, unfortunately. There are a number of order of battle articles that have made it to Featured List status, so they might help you gain a better understanding of the html mark up. You can find these in the Showcase here. One such example is Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton. I'd suggest starting in your sandbox, or starting a draft in your userspace, and you could invite others to take a look and tweak before making it live (I'd be happy to take a look if you want to put in the raw data). You might also get information about inserting tables by reading Help:Table. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Will do.--Rskp (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I uploaded it to my userpage and I would be grateful if you could have a look and let me know what you think.--Rskp (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've had a play around with it in my sandbox here. You are welcome to copy it if you want. It looks pretty good overall. Just a few comments:
 * What was the relationship between the 1, 2 & 3 Section and the divisions (42nd, 52nd, etc)? Were the divisions subordinate to the Sections or equal on the order or battle? Currently it looks like they were equal. Or are the divisions all part of No. 3 Section?
 * A number of the units themselves have articles, so you should add wikilinks in for those;
 * Some of the endashes are being used incorrectly (e.g. Major–General, should be just Major-General, or more correctly Major General without a hyphen or dash);
 * Do you know the full names of the commanding officers? Chauvel is easy, but I don't know any of the others, unfortunately.
 * were the 11th and 12th Light Horse Regiments subordinate to the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade, or were they attached at divisional level to the ANZAC Mounted Division? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot - the 11th & 12th LH were under Section 2 of Canal Defences and are therefore in the wrong place. I'll move them. No, I don't think I know their names. They may be hiding somewhere. I'll stop using dashes, thanks, and thanks for the links. At this stage of the war all these units* were under the command of Lawrence as head of No. 3 Section. This continued until October 1916 when Dobell took command of Eastern Force. (*The Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade is also in the wrong place; I'm not sure if it was in 1 or 2 Section, Canal Defences. This may also be true of the AFC though it was under the command of Chauvel. Could I add them but with question marks?) Thanks once again, I am most grateful for your interest and contribution. --Rskp (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'd suggest adding in a footnote (such as in I ANZAC Corps) stating that it uncertain, rather than a question mark as it looks a bit "cleaner" that. In regards to the AFC units, it sounds like they might have been "independent" divisional assets, so maybe just include this beside them in brackets, e.g. "(divisional asset)" so something like that? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Good Article Medal of Merit
Thanks for that. I set myself a target of 50, just over half way there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, Jim, you deserve it. 50! That's a very noble target. I've been trying to do one or two a month: your contribution puts me to shame! Its all good, though, as they say. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thankyou for your help about the army, although i stopped it yesterday, some guy from the federal police told me that it was illegal for me to attempt to gather classified material so i stopped it but thx, i really dont like how someone can actually trac me to my home from wiki --Gargabook (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. So long as you stick to open sources (e.g. journals, magazines and books by reputable publishers, etc.) you should be fine as they will have already been vetted. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tom. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Cheers, Tom. I appreciate it. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving MILHIST peer reviews
I've come across an issue with your recent archival of No. 4 Commando, the oldid and date is not that of the last edit to the review, it is for the time you archive the review and the condition the article is in. I've fixed this one, but there may be others if you've archived some reviews that way. -MBK004 06:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, MBK. Apologies for this. Not sure what I was thinking/drinking. I've gone back and checked the others that I've archived. Should be correct now. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Attacker class escort carrier
Hi there did I say congratulations ? Would you mind looking at Attacker class escort carrier its still a work in progress but you know how I have problems with images and white space if you could check everything is ok with this one. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Jim, I'd be happy to take a look. I'll try to do this tonight, but I'm trying to get one of mine up to GA so am focusing my limited time on that at the moment. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished. Apologies if I've mucked anything up. One further suggestion I have is to collapse the ribbon template at the bottom of the article as it is quite large. I suggest a peer review next and maybe a copy edit from the Guild. After that I'd say it would be ready for a GAN. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lam Van Phat
Yes for the lead. I've put up Nguyen Chanh Thi for FAC too  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted for Phat and Hassett  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Question!
I have visited many of the main battlefields in Europe (WW1 & WW2) and North Africa (WW2). I want to do a trip to Volgograd (ex-Stalingrad), Kharkov, Orel, Kursk, Belgorod, Smolensk and then Moscow in early summer 2011 (possibly renting a vehicle and driving - which may force the exclusion of Kharkov (Ukraine)). My wife has made it clear to me that she is just so totally not interested in the trip.... thus, what better travelling company than some editors from the MilHist forum who have an interest in WW2 Eastern Front, particularly with the inclusion of one or more Russian editors who speak English. Now, the question - is it acceptable practice to post something like this on a more regularly viewed MilHist forum / page, and if so - where do you recommend the right place to be? Please let me know your views. Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Farawayman, it sounds like a very interesting trip. I think it would be acceptable to post a quick message on the main Milhist talk page inviting those that are interested to contact you on your talk page and you could then work out contact from there. I'd advise caution, though, because ultimately you cannot be sure who anyone is on Wiki and while I'm sure most of our contributors are upstanding citizens some may not be. Thus, I'd advise maybe using offsite email to work out the details once people have expressed their interest. You can link your Wikipedia account to your email address by setting it up in "My Preferences" → "User profile" (you then need to input an email address and click the radio button for "enable email from other users"). This will allow other users to email you through Wikipedia but without them seeing your email address. You can then establish who is really interested, etc. and take it from there. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will ponder over the subject in the coming days.  Your warning is completely valid.  Farawayman (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorporating web photos
I am keen to incorporate photos from the AWM and Library of Congress photo collections into Wikipedia articles. There are photos from both these institutions already in Wikipedia -

eg. File:Australian 11th Battalion group photo - First Australian Imperial Force subsection of Military history of Australia during World War 1 article eg. File:The camel corps at Beersheba2 - 1915 January - March subsection of Middle Eastern theatre of World War 1 article

Can you please tell me how this is done? --Rskp (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Roslyn. Yes, of course, I uploaded a couple only this morning. Firstly, I advise reading Help:Files as this will give you the essential details, however, I will run through the process also here. To search the AWM's collection, follow this link: AWM Collection. You can search by conflict, or time period using the drop down boxes. Once you find an image you want to use, save it to your hardisk. Then you need consider is whether the images are in the public domain or whether they are copyrighted. If they are in the public domain, you should upload them on Wikimedia Commons. If they are copyrighted then they can't be uploaded on Commons, however, if you have a good reason to use them in the article they can be uploaded to Wikipedia under a claim of "fair use", however, at the start I advise only uploading images that you know are in the public domain (you can be fairly confident about the status of AWM and LOC images). After this you need to consider the licence to use. For Australian public domain images, the tag to use is the PD-Australia or PD-AustraliaGov such as that found on this file:  (click "edit" to view the code). Other copyright tags can be found here: Image copyright tags/All or Commons Copyright tags. Once you have determined this, click "Upload file" on the navigation bar on the left of the screen. On the screen you will see "Where did it come from?". Click on "It is from somewhere else" from the options provided. This will bring up the Upload file form. You then just need to fill in the details, including the original source (the AWM template can be used for this, substituting the AWM ID number), author, date, a description and the copyright tag (in the Permission field), relevant categories (it will allow you to search for these). Once this is done click "Preview" and then, if you are happy with it, click "Upload". After that you can use the images in your Wikipedia articles using the file name as normal. I hope this helps. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I had an idea that there was some way of directly linking to the institutions! --Rskp (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Question
I just came across this page 'User:RoslynSKP/Egyptian labour corps' which is now redundant, I think. Can I delete it?--Rskp (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fairly sure that as you are the author, you can tag it for deletion and an admin will come around and do it for you. I think the tag to add to it would be: db-author. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its been done. Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And Another
(I'm really procrastinating over First Gaza) Regarding the Battle of Magdhaba article, its still got a March 2007 note regarding need for citations. Can it be reevaluated? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those tags/banners can be removed by anyone so long as you believe that the concern has been addressed. To be honest, I avoid adding them to articles as they are quite garish and don't make the encyclopedia look very professional, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've done it all! WOW That's great. Thanks a lot :) --Rskp (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. If you are keen to make further improvements, a peer review would be a good way to help shake out any further issues and afterwards it would be a candidate for B class or even higher. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like a really good idea. How do I organise a peer review? --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, if you go to WP:MHPR there are a list of steps to set it up. The first step is to add the "peer-review=yes" mark up code to the Milhist talkpage banner. Once you've saved the page, there will be a redlink titled "request has been made".If you click on it, it will load up a new page for the peer review. On that page add the article name with a level three header. State why you are nominating the article for peer review (goals for the article, etc.) and then sign it with the four tildes "" . Save the page. Then transclude it on to the list on the WP:MHPR page, by adding to the list. If there are any dramas, let me know. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added some suggestions to the article's talk page. Please take a look if you get a chance. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given Magdhaba a fairly thorough clean up along the lines you suggest, but when I tried to add '|peer-review=yes' it didn't seem to happen? Sorry to be such a bleater!! All the best. --Rskp (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

30th Battalion (Australia)
Hey mate, I had a look and it looks quite good (re the B class criteria IMO). For completeness could you possibly add a sentence about the battalion not being reraised after the abandonment of the Pentropic organisation (in 1965 I think). As I assume this is what transpired. Anyway just a suggestion. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I will do that. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for pointing that out. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - you'd do the same for a black man... oh dear that sounds bad doesn't it... waiting for the wiki police... Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Review on WWII Military Biography article
Hi, I saw some wiki articles you have contributed too and noticed you were apart of the Military history WikiProject. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, I've recently been writing an article about Sidney Mashbir and I was wondering if you could help me review it and give me some pointers on how to develop it further, I have stacks of information relating to Col. Sidney Mashbir and the US/AUS Allied Translator and Interpreter Section {which is another article I would like to write soon} but I am unsure as to whether I'm on the right track or not. Cheers - Aeonx (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Aeonx, it doesn't look too bad. I have rated it as a Start class article. I made some tweaks so that it complies with the Manual of Style and added some suggestions on the talk page. Keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me with my article. I have expanded it a bit further and tried to incorporate your suggestions. I have also posted the article for review. Thanks for showing me how to do that. -- Aeonx (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Hi From your work on this subject can you cay if a fighter ace qualifies as notable? Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim. I think that generally we have considered them to be notable, although some of the articles about fighter aces currently don't adequately demonstrate this notability. I'm not sure if there is a policy that states this, though, so the best policy is always to go back to whether or not the subject is covered by reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have a couple of books that would qualify then.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of the June Days Uprising
Thank you for your assessment, I am currently working on the issues. Bobby122  Contact Me   (C)  16:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, Bobby, I'm happy to help where I can. When you think it is ready for re-assessment, please just add it to the list again at WP:MHA and someone will come and take a look. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship
Hi, thanks for your comments and attention to the Mississippi class battleship article and the A-class evaluation. I was substantialy gone from WP for a couple weeks, absorbed in producing a regatta for our yacht club, and just got back to the Mississippi project yesterday. I noticed that you closed the discussion based on elapsed time, but my sense is that my absense was not really a factor, as other contributions were waning. This evaluation process is a first for me and I want to learn from it. My observation is that the level of expectations and the opinions on what is the "right" solution vary significantly. My main objective here is to determine the proper format for US battleship articles and apply that format to the other U.S. pre-dreadnought articles. The first in the series, Indiana class battleship has FA status, but most of the others are a mess. Is my scope appropriate? Is the level of detail adequate? I've tried to make this an informative stand-alone article without digressing too far afield -- is this the right approach? Should the other articles include this level of discussion? Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kevin, the ACR was closed due not receiving the appropriate support (at least 3 supports) in the 28 day timeframe. Unfortunately warships aren't my area of expertise on Wiki (Australian Army units/battles are my area), so I'm not really sure about the content of the article, although to be honest it looks pretty good to me (but as I said, I don't really know). As such, my suggestion would be to work closely with the other editors as part of Operation Majestic Titan, which is currently focusing its attention on improving battleship articles. Sturmvogel66, Parsecboy, Dank, TomStar and the others all have considerable experience with working on battleships so I'm sure that they could help you to work out any content issues. From what I can tell, however, the main issue at the ACR was prose quality. I don't think it is/was particularly bad, but the best thing to do is to contact the Guild of Copy Editors and see if someone there is willing to take a run through the article and give you a hand. Finally, I just wanted to say please don't let this discourage you. I can't see any reason why your article can't achieve A class, or even become an FA, eventually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not discouraged.  I'll try the copy editors.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dec 1964 SV coup
Yes, I fixed Hammond. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Think I made a mistake!
Please assist..... Having completed the peer review for 6 Armd Div (S Afr) I followed the instructions to archive the peer review. Apologies!!!! Farawayman (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Change talk page banner to "peer review archived" - OK
 * 2) Add History to Talk Page: OK
 * 3) Move peer review to archived review:  I moved it to here but I think it should have been moved to here.  Can this be fixed?
 * 4) Remove the links to the review on WPMILHIST...... was too terrified in case I messed up more things!


 * Hi, Farawayman. OK, I think this can be resolved. I done the following to rectify the situation:
 * firstly, I've completed the Article History on the talkpage (there are a number of parameters that need to be entered also, as this provides a link back to the PR on the talkpage);
 * secondly, I've moved the article to the archive from the main peer review page and removed the notice;
 * finally, I've moved the review back to the correct location, removed the redirect from the incorrect one and replaced it with a speedy delete request. I think that this is the way to do it, but I'm not exactly sure. I might have made an error somewhere. I'm sure if I have, I/we will know soon enough! Have a good one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So it was a serious blunder! I truly apologise - I will leave that type of SysAdmin jobs up to you guys from now on!  Thanks for correcting matters.   Farawayman (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much, these things happen. I think you were confused because of the wording in the directions on the peer review page as they are not exactly clear. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 30th Battalion (Australia)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I don't even remember nominating it! Must have been someone else. Whoever they were, thanks! :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Random! Well done mate... can't believe I missed the 35th battalion / 30th battalion typo when I proof read it... damn! Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, yes, that was a howler. I guess that is what happens when one writes two articles at the same time. Interesting to see the article got about 7,000 hits. Qualifies for listing at DYKSTATS, but I don't really have the time to do so. The image probably helped boost its views. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battlecruisers ACR
Hey, I think I've fixed all your concerns on List of battlecruisers of Japan. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

MilHist GAN Review Contest

 * Thanks, Sturm. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arkansas Militia in the Civil War
Would you mind reviewing Arkansas Militia in the Civil War for me? It is the first step in breaking up the larger Arkansas Army National Guard Article. I am using the template as an outline to break up the article. Let me know what you think, thanks. Aleutian06 22:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added some comments to the talk page and made a few minor style edits. Good work so far. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, your comments are always very helpful. I will go back and add more secondary resources.  I went with the Militia Office election returns because they were an standard government document, but there are histoires on many of these organziations that I can add as secondary sources.
 * No worries. Always happy to help. Keep up the good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

link
Hi, I would like to create a link from the mention of Nekhl in the Magdhaba article to the subsection 'Raid on Nekhl' in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article. Is this possible? --Rskp (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes is it is. I think I've done this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow - that's great! Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
G'day Rupert, back in May, I posted a message on the Military Biography task force talk page about unreferenced BLPs. I've also posted a similar message on the Milhist talk page twice since then. Back then there were 237 UBLPs assigned to the Military Bio task force. Today, six months on, there are 227. For a project that is the leader in so many areas, this is a pretty poor effort. There are also 177 on the WikiProject Military history/Unreferenced BLPs list (which are probably mainly duplicated on both lists). Do you have any ideas on how the military project can be motivated into clearing out this list? As a comparison, working mainly by myself (little bit of help from some NRL guys) cleared out the 200 remaining WP:Australia UBLPs during October, so 227 should be a couple of weeks work for a big project like the Miltary one. We have another group at WP:URBLPR clearing them out month by month, rather than by topic, and doing between 30 and 50 per day. But how do you rally the troops into paying attention to the bottom end of the article tree, not just FAs, GAs and DYKs? The-Pope (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. As a project, in the past we have found it difficult to motivate editors to take on work that might be outside their particular area of interest (e.g. peer reviews, etc). I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, unfortunately, but perhaps it is something that you might consider posting on the project's strategy think tank page. If you were to pose the problem and ask for some suggestions about possible solutions to reduce the backlog, it might stimulate ideas and interest in working towards reducing the backlog. The think tank can be found here: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank. Not sure if this helps at all. Apologies if it didn't. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Vladislav
Greetings! I am sorry but I was unable to address earlier your recommendations in the peer review for Ivan Vladislav. I am grateful for the review and you can see the responses to your notes there. Best, --Gligan (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. I've responded on the review and made a couple of tweaks on the article. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

THANKS!!
Thanks for the help on my History of the Arkansas National Guard Series. I hope to have the split of the Arkansas Army National Guard Article done in the next week. Appreciate you comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damon.cluck (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 November 2010
 * No worries, I'm finding the articles quite interesting reading. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 and 1942
Hi

Thanks for reviewing both of my lists List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 and List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 at FLC review. You just gave your approval for the first list. Can I safely assume that the generic elements pertaining to both lists are now okay from your point of view? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they look pretty good to me, but I'm new to reviewing at FA/FL so still sort of feeling my way with it. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessing Military History articles
Hi, I noticed User:Mad_Man_American has listed a bunch of articles to be assessed, is it ok if I assess these articles? I think I have a reasonable understanding of the Stub, Start and B-Class criteria for the Militory History project and for wikipedia articles in general. If there are any articles I have worked on, or I think may be more than stub/start I will leave for another more experienced reviewer. Is this ok?

Regards, Aeonx (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aeonx. Yes, that is fine. The rule of thumb is that you can assess any article that you haven't been a signficant contributor to. Of course, the highest rating that can be awarded like this is B class. For anything higher there are more formal processes. It is great to see you take an interest in this side of Wikipedia, as we are usually short of editors that want to help out with assessment. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance
I thought its time to say thanks to all the editors who have assisted me in the articles I have been working on; so I took a look at toolserver.org and it shows that you have done 23,619 edits. I think you not only deserve, but are entitled to the below award in accordance with the award criteria. I know that one is supposed to award this medal to yourself, but we never do, so I am doing it on behalf of you! Thanks for all your help. Farawayman (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I've enjoyed reading your articles, particularly the history of the 6th Armd Div. I haven't read much about the SA contribution to the Second World War, so it was very educational. I think that is one of the great benefits of contributing to Wikipedia, as I have found that since I have started working on the encyclopedia my general knowledge of military history has increased simply by helping out with technical matters on other articles. Anyway, all the best and keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help with Split of Arkansas Army National Guard

 * Thanks very much for this, I've enjoyed reading the articles. I hope that you will see your project through to the end. We need more dedicated editors like yourself. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

rejected edit
A month ago I edited Chauvel's article but the changes were undone - the editor saying he 'prefers original version'. Having corresponded with the editor without a satisfactory outcome, I'm wondering if there are any other options. --Rskp (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the article is an FA, I'd suggest that maybe making a specific change proposal on the talk page might be the way to go. You could then leave a message on the Milhist talk page, directing editors to discuss the proposed change to see where consensus is. Having said this, from what I can tell from the diff there doesn't seem to be too much in it (i.e. the changes appear relatively minor). Does Hawkeye know that this is still an issue? They might think that it has been resolved. Perhaps the first step is to contact them on their talkpage and seeing if you can reach some agreement. If this doesn't work then I'd suggest making a change proposal on the article talkpage and asking for outside opinions (as outlined above). I hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks a lot. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

La Ferté
Thanks for the review - I wasn't quite finished, as guests arrived for the afternoon. I'll finish up this evening. Your help and suggestions are greatly appreciated.  Acroterion  (talk)  20:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate, apologies for that. I will probably be offline for the next day or so, so I didn't want to leave the review hanging until then as it looks pretty good to me now. Well done, by the way. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the ISBN, thanks for picking up the other items. I may eventually push it for A-class, but first want to get some visual context in the form of an area layout and translated layouts of the fortification. There's some French material on Commons that can be adapted, although the map used in the French version is to my mind not properly licensed - I'll have to create my own version from scratch. Again, thanks  Acroterion  (talk)  22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in milhist articles
Hi. It's not just the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, check out some of the revisions at Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts pushing the line that Robert's ancestors were English invaders of Ireland. I'm not totally unsympathetic to that viewpoint but it's not relevant, IMO, to an article about someone 300 years later. Sadly I'm worried that we're straying into the very contentious world of viewpoints on Irish history which are polarised and lacking in common ground. NtheP (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on M79 grenade launcher
Thanks for the welcome to the Military History Wikiproject. However, when I went to improve the citations in the massive backlog, I found that sections "Design" and onward on M79 grenade launcher appear to be a copyvio of this webpage. How do I know whether they copied Wikipedia or whether the Wikipedia article is a copyvio? If it is, what should I do about it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure how to check the history of external websites, sorry. I think the best place to ask this question is: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Someone should have the expertise to answer your question. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sword
Hi, Would you mind peer reviewing sword? I'll appreciate your input on ways to improve the article. thx--84.229.106.220 (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. Its not really an area I have much subject knowledge on, but I'll give it a go. Probably post something in the next 12 to 18 hours - bit busy today. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Z Special Unit: Jock McLaren / Robert Kerr McLaren
AustralianRupert,

You may know me from editing and contributing to the Z Special Unit Wikipedia article. In the last 30 minutes I've come across two Z Special Unit personnel Jock McLaren and Robert Kerr McLaren. I have noticed that they have similar information on their article such as their lives, military and civilian information, while some information is on one but not the other or slightly different to the other. I also noticed if you try and edit Jock McLaren's WP Biography banner on his talkpage, it's listed him as "Jacob Brown". They are also listed in the Z Special Unit Personnel category. Would appreciate feedback. Adamdaley (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam. I've fixed the "listas" issue (I'd say it was just a copy/paste error). In regards to the two articles, they appear to be the same individual so I'd recommend a merge and redirect. I think the best option would be redirect Robert Kerr McLaren to Jock McLaren ("common name" policy), but others might have a different take. The best way to do this is to include on Robert Kerr McLaren and  on the Jock McLaren page (at the top). This will place a banner on the page inviting discussion on the talk page. You can then propose/discuss the intended merge, and once any points have been worked out the merge can be done and a redirect placed on one article to the other. Hope this helps, please let me know if you need help with this. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the merge banners should go on the article page (apologies this was my fault, I should have made it clearer), but the discussion occurs on the talkpage. I've moved the banners, but you probably should start the discussion by creating a thread on the talkpage of one article and then providing a link to the discussion on the on talkpage of the other. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * G'day fellas. I have been bold and merged these articles now as they are clearly the same bloke in my opinion. I merged to Jock McLaren as I believe this was the name he was known by and the article was in far better shape (B class vs stub). Any dramas please let me know or undo. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. No dramas from me. I'd have been bold and done it myself, but was a bit busy at the time and wasn't able to take a full look at the other article, so I thought the slow approach best. But now I look at it, there's no reason why it needs discussion really. I agree too that the article target should be "Jock McLaren", as that appears to be the common name. Ordinarily a redirect from the full name would have been in order in this case too, so this appears to have solved that oversight. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I take responsibility for putting the merging banners in the wrong area. I'm still learning how these other banners works besides the commonly used ones on various talkpages are used.  For those who were helpful in clearing up the matter I appreciate it and would be willing to help in any way I can in the future.  Adamdaley (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem at all... we're all volunteers after all! It was a good spot on your part and it meant we cleaned up another duplicate article. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
I just saw this - congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick, its been a long year. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many congrats! Look forward to hearing how you use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, believe it or not, its my way of trying to convince the Army to let me back. Too broken to be an engineer anymore, but crusty sergeants and WOs need to know how to spell if they are to complete the ASWOC program... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good stuff then, and best hopes for you as an educator! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good show AR and congratulations! The first beer is on you tommorrow... the next six are on me though because its been a bitch of a week. Now I only need to survive Friday... Anotherclown (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate. Its going to be a good one. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sperrbrecher Article.
Have you noticed the Sperrbrecher has reached Class B? Anything I could help you with that is on the english wikipedia, I would certainly look at it and give my thoughts and opinions on it. Just leave a message on my talkpage. Appreciate your help and hope we can create or improve more articles together! Adamdaley (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Adam, I'll give you a bell when something crops up. Keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for something to work on, there is an article creation/cleanup/expansion list you might be interested in at WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there is always a shortage of reviewers at Military History Peer Review. If you are keen, you might like to offer some advice in a peer review, or in an A-class review. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Powles p.151 SukereirRiver.jpg
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you but I put this photo up and the file seems ok but it looks like I've missed a step because its not linked to the Mughar Ridge article. Could you have a look at it, please? :) --Rskp (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, you just left off ".jpg" in the file name on the article. Should be fixed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. :)--Rskp (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter Wolfrum Article
Australian Rupert,

Once again I've come for a little advice concerning the Walter Wolfrum article. It states that he joined the Luftwaffe in 1943 til the end of the war. I would like to point out the years of service in the article and then compare them to the years served in his infobox (1939 - 1945). To me it is only a minor mistake by someone. Adamdaley (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like "1939" was added by an IP a while ago. I've adjusted it myself to reflect what is in the prose. The other way to go about it would be to leave a message on the talkpage, but in this case I think being bold is the best way. If it is wrong, someone will let us know. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: editorial
No, please, feel free to make any spelling to grammatical changes you feel are necessary. If you have any content suggestions, let me know; I did think it may be a tad long at first.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a couple of "pull throughs" so the barrel at least should be clean... ;-) It might be a bit long, as you say, maybe the way to deal with that is to remove the block quotes and summarise? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I'm rather fond of those blue curlie quotes. :P I've shortened the quote from BIO1E and done some more trimming, but I think the quote from MILPEOPLE should stay as is. If you have any other ideas on tightening the rest, feel free to go at it.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 21:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put up another one (overriding the previous editorial on the same page). This one is about how jargon and acronyms suck, let me know what you think!  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 22:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks pretty good. I found a couple of typos, but that is all. Be careful about repeating the same word or a derivative in the same sentence, though. For example: "Even worse, the trend of modern militaries trends..." (repeated use of word "trend" or derivative). Otherwise it looks pretty good. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony... :P I missed that even when I re-read it. This is why I advocated having a second set of eyes on!  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1st Parachute Battalion (Australia)
Hey mate. Good additions on the engineer stuff for this article, great to see it now fully referenced because it is a very interesting and obscure unit. Unfortuantly I think there is a bit of a discrepncy which has now been unintentionally introduced though. Specifically you mention Lt Col John Overall in one paragraph (forming in early March 1943) and then the next para below the original text has Maj John Overall being appointed CO in Sept 1943. This is probably just the way its written and not that the refs are incorrect so hopefully you wont need to go back to SLQ... frustrating I know! Anotherclown (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. I really should stop editing at midnight. I think I've fixed the issue now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep that's fixed it, looks good. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mughar Ridge
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions - your interest is very much appreciated. I put it up in rather a rush but will now spend some time, because it would be really great to get GA or A. Re the peer review - I think its just that people have not looked at this area of the war because there is quite a lot of mythmaking running through the sources. And the campaigns have been subjected to simplification - starting with the Battles Nomenclature Committee in 1922! I hope Wikipedia can be the vehicle which changes all that. --Rskp (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you might be right, although the BNC that formed after the Second World War made a few "interesting" decisions too. No worries at all about the suggestions, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just had a quick look at World Cat and Google Books for the ISBN number for Bruce's 'The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War' published in 2002, but I couldn't see it. Where should I be looking? :) --Rskp (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the ISBN is: 9780719554322. You can find it by scrolling down to the "Details" section on this page: . AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot - scrolling !! - Its such a steep steep learning curve!!! :) All the best, --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

November contest
Hi mate, as you and I tend to be the main guys administering the contest, thought I'd get a reality check... Pls see this and let me know your thoughts, i.e. let it stand and count for this month's or treat them as unassessed and let them count to next month's, or something else again... Ed17 seems to have done the same thing on one of his entries... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian, I think that the best course of action is to remove them from the November list without scoring and then put them up for December. A null edit can then confirm for B class, or the rating can be removed so that they go into the unassessed pile. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was how I saw it -- left a similar msg for Ed17 so will just give him a chance to respond before I finalise the scoring. BTW, I think I'm first or second so probably politic for you to do the awards/newsletter after I finish the score verification... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay mate, taken care of the three outstanding -- ready for you to tally, etc per above. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tallied, updated the Scoreboard, added the bit to the newsletter and handed out the awards. I don't think I've missed anything, but please let me know if I have. Well done with the contest this month, too, BTW. Good to see some more RAAF content to balance my bias towards the footsloggers. ;-) Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks for that - geez I knew it was close but didn't think that close! Re. bias, familiarity helps I guess - you're ex-army aren't you? And I'm an air force brat who also contracted to them for a few years at Air Headquarters, as it once was (or Airhead Quarters as I believe your chaps referred to it)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, five years in the green skin. Been out for a year last month and to be honest it has been the worst year of my life, but anyway... Hopefully getting back in early next year, but still have to prove to the MO that the various injuries have recovered properly. Strangely enough, when I was growing up I always wanted to be a fighter pilot, then when I walked into recruiting I saw pictures of combat engineers crawling through mud to lay dems and I was converted! :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Erwin Ding-Schuler Article
Australian Rupert,

Once again, I've come back for a little help. This time for the Erwin Ding-Schuler article. The category banner at the bottom containing Births, Deaths etc, the Births 1913 should be changed to Births 1912 for Erwin Ding-Schuler. How do I change it? Adamdaley (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jumping in, I have done this now. All you need to do is edit the category the article is placed in, i.e. change it from 1913 Births to 1912 Births. See this diff for the mark up. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried doing that and it appeared to me it didn't work. I don't know maybe I was doing something wrong.  Thanks anyway. Adamdaley (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Battle of Sedan (1940)
Thanks Rupert. Look forward to your evaluation. Try not to be too harsh! Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dapi89, we seem to have cross posted. I've just left a message on your talkpage. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rupert. I expected worse! I think I may have cleared up the mistakes on the lists. I am going to go through it over the next few days and iron some things out. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me. Dapi89 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba Article
Australian Rupert,

I have left a comment on the Battle of Magdhaba talkpage to see if the British should be added to the Countries that were involved. You can read my comment on the article talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Tom and I have recently put together a guide on closing milhist ACRs. I've used a review of yours as an example. I probably should have asked for your permission first, but it's only just occurred to me - please accept my apologies for the omission, and if you have any objections just let me know and I'll rewrite the page content. Best, EyeSerene talk 17:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine, I don't mind. I had a look yesterday and it looks like you have both put in a lot of work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) EyeSerene talk 11:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Joshua Ryan (USMC)
I got a negative reply back from the History Division. They didn't have anything on hand, which in my mind clinches the notability argument, because they tend to have records on just about everyone. They suggested I try the Military Personnel Records Center, but without a serial number, there's not much to go on. In any case, I don't really think that records like that make for verifiable sources, since they are so hard to find copies of. Since I don't think there's anything more I can do, let me know if you want to pursue the records.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate, no don't knock yourself out over it. Thanks for giving it a try, though. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit for Mughar Ridge article
Is it possible to stop this process as its questioning place names as if they are people! And I think the meaning is being changed - e.g. 'On 12 November, while General Allenby prepared for battle by ordering the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division to attack the Ottoman Armys right flank, the Australian Mounted Division was reinforced by two additional brigades. After advancing towards Tel es Safi they encountered a determined and substantial Ottoman counterattack.' who is advancing and encountering the Ottoman counterattack - it could be the 52nd and/or the AMD!! when it was just the AMD with 2 additional brigades. :)--Rskp (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it is possible to stop the process. You just have to let the copy editor know that that is what you wish to happen. However, I would advise sticking with it. It can be a bit heartbreaking to watch, but ultimately usually the outcome is an improvement. The way I suggest going about this is by liasing with the copy editor, letting them know any concerns you have, clarifying anything that they are not certain about (usually they will not be subject matter experts, but this can be a good thing as ultimately we are writing for those who don't know much about the topic and a non-subject matter expert can spot jargon, assumptions, etc. that you as writer might not have picked up on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot; I hadn't thought of contacting the editor but will do. All the best.--Rskp (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The copy edit has been very valuable - after all my concerns. There are a couple of areas which have been suggested to be dealt with; consistency of place names and citation bundling. (long sentences are being worked on) I'm not sure what to do - the place names are different from one source to another and I've no way of knowing which is correct, if indeed there is a correct one! And regarding multiple citations - I suppose this is because all the quotes are at the end of each paragraph but I've not come across it before. I'd appreciate your thoughts. All the best --Rskp (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, basically the issue with the citation bundling can be solved by moving the citations to cover just the information that relates to them. Essentially this means that within a sentence, the first part of it might be sourced from one work, while the last part might be another. Thus it would be referenced as such: "At Duntroon, Rupert was known by his classmates as a "drill pig" because of all the time he spent on the square, but later, when interviewed in Army News he said that this reputation was undeserved. He was quoted as saying that he "...disliked drill intensely and that the reason [he was always on the square] was because of all the Corrective Drills...[he]...received when he failed to prepare for BC Day, choosing instead to go to Casey's Bar on a Tuesday evening". " . Regarding the place names, that is a tricky one. Consistency is best if possible, so I would suggest maybe making a list of all the variations and choosing one that is the most prevalent (and noting in a footnote that some sources use variations). AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The copy editor suggests citations should come after the relevant sentence. I have a vague idea that it was suggested by Military history WikiProject to group them at the end of the para. Is there a conflict here or just another example of my old memory? :)--Rskp (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. The copy editor is correct. Citations should be included after the relevant sentence or clause. I think you might be getting slightly confused by the throw-away comment that I sometimes make about a "B class article requiring at least one citation at the end of each paragraph". Essentially that comment is (somewhat inelegantly) saying that the information contained in a paragraph should be fully cited. If this can be done with one citation at the end of the paragraph, that is fine, although mostly a paragraph would draw from a number of sources that are used to draw together multiple pieces of information, and that is when the citations should be placed next to the information they a references for. For an example, take a look at the Battle of Sio article, which is currently being considered for Featured Article status. I hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. But I just looked at the Battle of Sio and I am really confused now because there are no citations in the introduction to this article. My first para looks like this after following the copy editor's suggestion - 'The Battle of El Mughar Ridge (officially known as the Action of El Mughar) took place on 13 November 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War. This engagement resulted in the subsequent occupation of Junction Station, also known as Wadi es Sara. The station was a vital rail link in the Ottoman Empire's lines of communication between Jaffa and Jerusalem, with a branch line running south to Et Tine and others extending on to Beersheba and Gaza. The fighting occurred north of the Gaza-Beersheba line, and west of the road from Beersheba to Jerusalem via Hebron. It involved the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division and the 75th Infantry Division in the centre with the Australian Mounted Division on their right flank, and the Anzac Mounted Division and Yeomanry Mounted Division on the infantry's left flank.  This action was divided into two stages with a pause for artillery to be brought forward. Following the Yeomanry's successful charge up onto El Mughar ridge, two crucial fortified villages were captured by elements of the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division.  This victory opened the way to Junction Station where an important Ottoman railway link to Jerusalem was cut the next day. ' I haven't updated the article yet because I'm really not sure what to do. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally a lead doesn't need to be cited so long as everything is cited in the body. There are exceptions, though, for instance where a direct quote is used in the lead, a citation should be provided, also where something might be considered controversial then it is best to cite. Ultimately though, whether to cite a lead or not is determined on a case by case basis and there is no strict rule in this regard. The relevant policy link is WP:LEADCITE. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I'll put the citations in the lead this time, as I've got them sorted and see what the consensus reactions is. Regards :)--Rskp (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Colin (journalist) Article
I would like to see if you are able to rate its class for the following article Paul Colin (journalist). I will also be sending the same message to the following users User:1ForTheMoney and User:The Bushranger. If you can help with this I'll appreciate it. Adamdaley (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam. I've assessed as Start class for Biography project, but I don't know enough about the other projects to assess for them. I've left some comments on the talk page also. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:AustralianRupert - An Infobox has been started by someone else, and I just added a little to it. It's slowly improving.  Thanks for taking the time to look at the article.  Adamdaley (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice Please
Hello AustralianRupert - I'd like to start updating the "Air Forces Memorial" page and as far as images are concerned have previously placed these directly on the page concerned, but I'm advised this may contravene the wiki self-promotion policy. However if I wait for approval (especially as this is a stub and others may not happen along frequently) the update may take a long-time. I've placed some example images on the discussion page. Is this a case where I could update the page and then have it examined for potential contravention of policy? Better to get approval for such action first rather than after the fact! Thanks for ant help WyrdLight (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: Until recently and for some time the wiki page also carried a link to my single topic web page about the memorial - I'm not so concerned about the possibility of adding this back in although that would I believe add to the wiki page (definitely for others to determine) but you'll see its generally the source of the material I'm proposing to place on wiki & has been of direct interest to families abroad with commemorated relatives.
 * Hi, the images look generally fine to me, although I'm not an image expert, sorry. However, basically the licence allows anyone to use these images for free if they attribute where they got them from. So long as you are happy with this, that is fine. Nevertheless, currently the article is too small to include such a large number of images. It would need the addition of a considerable amount of information to remain balanced between prose and images. If it could be suitably expanded, I wouldn't see an issue with the addition of extra images, within reason. In regards adding information to the article, I believe that this is fine, although you need to be careful not to violate your own copyright (i.e. you need to use different words to that which is included in your webpage), additionally for disclosure I would recommend just adding a note on the talk page letting editors/readers know that there is a potential conflict of interest and that you have endeavoured in your edits not to self promote your own work. I hope this helps. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IJA 18th Regt
Hey there - Regarding the page on the IJA 18th Infantry Regiment, if you really think an infobox is sufficient for "supporting materials" at this stage, would you do the honors and change the assessment in the Military History box on the Talk page? I feel like if I do it, without having done something to the article, then it might look inappropriate or self-serving or something related to impropriety. Thanks! -- Boneyard90 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've done this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I am very confused about editing the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) page. It looks like I did a complete re-edit of the page at 1100 wiki time but I was not aware of it! Can you help sort this out?--Rskp (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Panic over - decided that is what I did and just cut it. Hope its ok.--Rskp (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, good to hear that you've sort it. I have a toddler and that has happened to me a couple of times when she has bumped the computer. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Josef Fitzthum Article
Australian Rupert,

I have made a Peer Request for Josef Fitzthum since information has been fixed up, added and a picture of "Josef Fitzthum" was included recently. Was wondering if you could re-assess and give feedback on the article. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some comments to the peer review page, but its not really my area of expertise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Australian Rupert - To me the literature maybe books containing additional information about Josef Fitzthum and the Waffen SS he was in during World War II? I don't have any of those books, or read German, even though I did learn a little German in High School for 10 weeks. Thanks for looking at the article. Adamdaley (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Australian Rupert - They are books containing information. Although I cannot find ALL of them on Amazon.com, the one's I do find are books containing the author's name and name of book.  Maybe that section could be renamed to "Further Reading"? Adamdaley (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would probably be workable. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kokoda Track campaign
Hey mate. I was just thinking that the main thing this article appears to be missing still is a final concluding paragraph in the aftermath section that details casualties of the beligerants etc. As far as I can tell (from a skim read only) this info is really only included in the infobox. Maybe you might consider including a paragraph on this? I could do it myself but given that you're the main contributor to the article you probably have a bit more knowledge about it (and where to find the info) etc (plus I'm really lazy at the moment). Anyway just a thought. Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. I will see what I can come up with. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a comment in a Move Page request
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.

Thus, I proposed the name to be changed for "Cisplatine War" because it is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). A few examples:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc...

Your comment in Talk:Argentina–Brazil War would be very welcome! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've had a bit of a look at the talk page and to be honest the topic is beyond my level of expertise. It seems like the war has a number of different names, so perhaps a combination of redirects, and inclusion of "(also known as...)" in the lead might be the best solution. Other than that, I'm probably not really able to comment with any authority. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

AD Vs CE Discussion
I'd like to hear your input on the matter, If you can add your view here it will be most appreciated, Regards---Macarenses (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've add my thoughts to the discussion on the MOS (dates and numbers) page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry



 * Cheers, Merry Christmas to you too. Have a good one! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice Needed
Australian Rupert,

Recently, I have been told to stop doing the way I edit. I generally keep to myself and try not to cause any trouble on en.wikipedia.org at the same time try and become online friends with some of the contributors such as yourself. Most of the edits I did on Christmas night have been reverted back, except for a couple of them. Even one that I was trying to contribute to Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher my whole comment and pointing out differences in the article in bullet type, was reverted to the previous. Would like you to look at the comments that have been made on my talkpage: User_talk:Adamdaley

Honestly, this has really got me down because I have learnt so much knowledge from Wikipedia and have alot of respect for the information on it even a small percentage of it maybe wrong. The en.Wikipedia.org, is the only website I really enjoy contributing too and reading about things I never knew. This situation has made me consider not to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. Even though it's the main website I go to to occupy my time and have a special interest in helping improve the information. As for my personal life, it's not perfect and nobody is considering I do have a mental illness for a number of years. Advice or feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam. I'm sorry to hear that your time on Wiki is getting you down. I myself have been dealing with anger issues arising from PTSD, so although I don't want to presume to say I understand your situation, I feel I at least have some knowledge of how you might feel. I have found that sometimes interaction on Wiki can lead to frustration and misunderstanding. When that happens, I find that the best thing to do is to stand up from the computer and make myself a cup of tea, and then come back to it. If that doesn't work, I take a bit of a longer break and spend some time with my neglected other half. I find that a couple of days off can do wonders for my enthusiasm. I also find that asking someone for clarification about why something was done can help, although because of the faceless nature of Wikipedia communication, sometimes this can contribute to the frustration as misunderstandings sometimes occur when there are no verbal or facial communication clues to an editor's meaning.


 * Regarding this situation, though, I think that your comment on the talk page might have been reverted by accident. Magioladitis probably didn't/doesn't realise that you had posted a comment which has been removed by their revert (they probably were just focusing on the project tags and didn't see the comment). In regards to the project banner tags, this seems to be a technical issue which, to be honest, I had never heard of before. As such, my advice is probably not going to be very helpful, but I think the best way to proceed would be to try to read the policy document that has been posted on your talk page (Banner standardisation), and if in doubt ask some more questions. The talkpage seems to link a number of discussions which might help gain some background knowledge of the issue also: Wikipedia talk:Banner standardisation.


 * On an unrelated note, I see on your talkpage that you are planning to do some work on the 6th Division article. It would be great to see that improved. It is on my long list to improve, but if someone else is keen to work on it, that would be great. I've taken 3rd Division to GA-class, and 9th Division to B-class, so if you want some ideas, those articles might help, although obviously there are many different ways to do things on Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope this chat helps in some way. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that wikipedia can be frustrating, while at the same time I've learnt so much information as well as some Wikipedia coding.  If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have said no I wouldn't be able to do it, but I am willing to try and preview it until it's right.  As for the 6th Division article, I have the book that is mentioned at the bottom.  Will ask if I need anything. Adamdaley (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've made a couple of cosmetic edits to the 6th Division article, but I will leave it to you now. Good luck with it and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Magioladitis has reverted my comment and information I placed on Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher talkpage. He made a mistake which is understandable. Adamdaley (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, Adam. Taking it easy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1
Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for taking a look. I've only done a bit of minor copy editing work and don't have any of the sources, so I will have to leave it up to Dapi to address your concerns, as they are the main contributor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Relief of Genoa
Dear sir, i've just read your suggestions in the "Discussion" section and i will bear them in mind. Thanks for the encouragement & have a merry christmas. Pietje96 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Charles Richards
The source you added to this unreferenced BLP in November was a Wikipedia mirror. Please be more careful when adding sources to BLPs. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, apologies for that. I've found the source that was listed in the original Wikipedia article (2006 New Year Honours), so I've used that as the source now. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

František Fajtl Article
Australian Rupert,

I noticed you have done the "B-Class Status" for the WikiProject Military History on the František Fajtl article. Thanks for doing that. I tend not to do that because I don't really know what to look for so I let other people who know more what to look for to do it. I appreciate you doing that it's your contribution to the article. Adamdaley (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, Adam. Have a good day. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Sattelberg
Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bar Confederation Article: Possible Merger?
On the Talk:Bar Confederation someone has suggested a merger between 2 articles. I've replied to the original comment and agreed they be merged under a different name. You can see my comment on the above talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010 contest
Hi mate, Happy New Year... Tks for finishing off the verification -- do you want to take a break and I'll do the total/newsletter/awards or are you on a roll...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too, Ian. I'm on a roll: I've tallied them up offline and am about to update the scoreboard, so I may as well do the awards as well. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've got it all: scorecard updated, points tallied, newsletter updated, barnstars awarded. I don't think I've missed anything. Please let me know if I have. On a slightly unrelated note, I think the quarterly peer review/ACR participation awards are due to be tallied. I can do them if no one else has time/wants to, but I did them last time so I wouldn't mind having a break this time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, re. the last review gongs tally, for reviews on the cusp of the period, did you count contributions according to when the review started, when it finished, or the individual's contribution (kinda hoping not the last)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian, I only counted those that were finished in the period. For example, if a review had been opened in September but was not closed by 1 October, I did not count it. Thus, the last peer review that was counted for the July to September period was the 477th Test and Eval Squadron, the last promoted ACR was Battle of Marengo, and the last failed ACR was Arado E.381. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy



 * Cheers, Bzuk, Happy New Year to you too! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My Barnstar Award
Australian Rupert,

Thanks for Invisible Barnster Award! It's appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Have a good one! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert. Glad you think so. Dapi89 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Dapi89 ... I see you've received a Barnstar from User:AustralianRupert too! It makes us feel special doesn't it? User:AustralianRupert is good to know and I feel he appreciates our help. Adamdaley (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 * Thanks, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Award
Greetings! I am grateful that you have awarded me a barnstar but I think that it is a mistake because I don't deserve it since unfortunately I haven't done a single review ever in Wikipedia. I suppose you wanted to award someone else and I am notifying you now so that you can encourage the person who deserves it :) Regards, --Gligan (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gligan, thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it. I'm working off the list here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe it was listed in the table because of your involvement in this peer review: WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you also Rupert, for the Military Review reward. It is appreciated. Smallchief 11:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact judging from the the criteria for that table, I think I was listed there because of my support given for the assessment of the article Sack of Amorium to A-class. Still though, I don't deserve the award because I haven't suggested any improvement due to the fact that my skills in English language are insufficient.


 * The peer review of Ivan Vladislav was done by you while the article itself was expanded by me. Best, --Gligan (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, it is for the ACR: apologies, I should have read the table more closely. Nevertheless, the award is a token of the appreciation that all the co-ordinators have for any editor's contributions at peer review or ACR, no matter how small it may be. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AustralianRupert for the award that you gave me. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much then; I wish you a successful 2011. Best, --Gligan (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

 * Thanks, Kirill. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

abbreviations of ROK, UN, US etc should be formally introduced, e.g. "Republic of Korea (ROK)"
Ed! and I are talking about whether to write "United States (US)" or just United States or US. In WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Bowling Alley, you wrote:
 * abbreviations of ROK, UN, US etc should be formally introduced, e.g. "Republic of Korea (ROK)"

Ed! says that he's sometimes been asked to write "United States (US)" at GAN. I'd rather follow Chicago 10.33, AP Stylebook (at "U.S."), and everything else I've seen over the years ... no one who reads AmEng needs to be told what "US" means. ROK and UN, sure. UK, I'd vote not to write it out, but I can see an argument (considering how geographically challenged Americans are). - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One important point to remember is that while we are writing an encyclopaedia in a variety of national Englishes (NZ English, Indian English, Singaporean English); that our English writing is for an international audience. While I can write an article in NZ English, I should write it in NZ English bearing in mind the UK English, US English, and Caribbean English readers who'll use it.  Due to the US's status as the singular current superpower, English language cultural and economic hegemon, and that the article itself is in en_US, not spelling out US ought to be fine.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It goes against the little devil on my shoulder that screams out for consistency (i.e all or none), but I can live with it if that's what everyone thinks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes for Military personnel
Australian Rupert,

You are probably aware there is a Biography infobox for people who served in the Military. Recently, I've been putting the full parametres of this infobox. My point is when I put the "Birth date" as (example):

It automatically calculates the age of the person. Now, when I've done this (following the template and infobox requirements), other contributors have changed it for example not YYYY|MM|DD (as above) but as "15 October 1913" (another example) and without the parameters which is included in the template. I feel it should be the template and not human input of date. I have queried this in #wikipedia-en-help and they suggested to leave a note in the infobox that the default "Birth date" and "Death date" are the default input of dates. Adamdaley (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this probably sounds fair enough. You could just leave a hidden comment, or mention it on the talk page of the article concerned. Remember though, that some articles will use different date formats, though (e.g. DDMMYYYY or YYYYMMDD), and as along as the format is consistent throughout the article, either is technically correct per WP:MOSDATE (with allowances for national variation). AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you've undone some of my work in the Infobox. I'm only following the template.  Why can't people accept there is only one Military Biography template?  As for the rest of the article it doesn't need to be changed.  Honestly, I feel like giving up on Wikipedia.  Can't do anything right even though I'm trying to keep out of trouble and "try" and do the right thing, I'm not a memory reader.  Of course you remember when I came to you before with problems, I was only following the shortened version (for example) "WP" instead of people bringing to my attention that a few people on Wikipedia were trying to standardise Wikipedia templates to "WikiProject Biography", "WikiProject Aviation" or "WikiProject Terrorism" etc.  I have had no problems with those two contributors since.  Why have a shortcut/abbreviations while they still work?  Honestly, I'm a good and reliable person who has a few problems.  Adamdaley (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, I'm sorry that I appear to have upset you, it certainly wasn't my intention. Please try to remain calm. I haven't undone your work, all I've done is "tweaked" it. The date format in an article should be consistent. Some topics will use ddmmyyyy and some will use yyyymmdd based on national variation. Either is fine, so long as there is consistency in an article. This is accepted as good practice within Wikipedia as a whole and is a "requirement" at higher levels (e.g. GA, ACR, FA). Your edit was fine, you just need to remember to maintain the consistency of style that is already in the article. By adding "df=yes" to the infobox template, the dates can be auto presented, but in the ddmmyyyy format. The relevent policy documents to read are WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET both of which are sections of WP:MOSDATE. Additionally, in the Douglas Bader article it was not correct per WP:DASH to use emdashes in year ranges, so that is why I changed them. Please don't think that I changed your work because I don't value your contributions. As I've stated before, I greatly appreciate your work, and that is why I gave you a barnstar: to encourage you to continue. However, in this case I feel you were slightly incorrect. That happens; we all make mistakes, including me, and other editors will change things that they disagree with. That is the nature of working on Wikipedia. Of course, I hope that you will continue editing and I'm happy to continue to answer your questions if that is what you want. If not, then I wish you well and take care of yourself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Towton
Hi, Rupert. Thank you for starting a look at the Battle of Towton. I have addressed your concerns and suggestions raised at the A-Class review, and look forward to your continuing input at your pleasure. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone over the rest of the article and added my comments to the review page. The article looks quite good, I look forward to supporting it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I have responded to your additional comments.  Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support; one step towards the goal of seeing the article on the Main Page on the battle's 550th anniversary! Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Good luck with your goal! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Mughar Ridge
This article has had a pretty thorough reedit resulting from the very valuable copy edit. What do you think should happen next? :) --Rskp (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Roslyn, it is currently rated a B class, so I'd suggest aiming for GA. As the article hasn't yet had a peer review, I'd suggest putting it up for one before requesting a GA review. This can be done by listing it at WP:MHPR. Hopefully there will be a bit more participation than the one for the Magdhaba article. Once the peer review is done, depending upon the response I'd suggest taking it to WP:GAN for a Good Article review (unfortunately that can sometimes take a month or more, though, due to the current backlog). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, AustralianRupert, regarding your comments on the Assessment of the Battle of Mughar Ridge -

"This review has now run for 28 days, so it is due for closing. An uninvolved co-ordinator will do this soon (it might take a couple of days). Given that it doesn't seem to have gained the three explicit votes of support it will most likely be closed as unsuccessful. I hope this won't discourage you, though. There are probably only a few more issues to iron out before it could be successful at WP:GAN or here. I'd recommend working through the last of Anotherclown's comments after the review is closed and then requesting a peer review. After that you could take it to GAN and once successful there, an ACR shouldn't be too hard to complete successfully. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)"

thanks for all your time and effort you have put into this. It seems one reviewer opposed it on the basis of some last minute suggestions, one of which - the citations in the lead, is debatable as I don't think its mandatory either way. It was a surprise to have two major changes suggested after working through all the style corrections. But even if all the suggestions were followed to the letter, there would still be only one vote. Relying on the opinion of one reviewer who is not an expert in the field, places a huge burden on that person. Indeed I think too much was expected from Anotherclown and its equally unfair to the article to head its discussion page with "Not approved". The implication is that it was reviewed by three editors who checked the article thoroughly and found it wanting but this did not happen. The same can be said for "No consensus to promote" this suggests there was more than one vote. Or was there? --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Please let me clarify. For the article to have been successful in the A-class review there needed to have been at least three explicit "support" votes. Basically this means, three different reviewers need to type Support instead of Comments. For example, please see the reviews that were promoted here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2011. In this case, unfortunately, there were no support votes. The votes that were there, were as follows: (1) A1, clear and good within the limits of citation style which is a template maintainer problem - implicit support on one criteria, but probably not enough to be considered as full support (there are four other criteria, which can be found at WP:MHA) [from Fifeloo]; (2) Comments - neither support or oppose [from Jim] (3) Comments/recused [from myself] and (4) Comments changed to Oppose [from Anotherclown]. When confronted with such a spread of opinion the closing co-ord has no option but to close with "no concensus to promote". In regards to heading the talk page with "Not approved" – there are only two options in that field (approved or not approved), as it is hard coded mark up in the Article history template that the co-ordinator has no control over. If you wish to a better understanding of how a co-ordinator determines the result of a review, the relevant advice can be found here: WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review.


 * Hi, Yes, I was aware of the need for 3 positive votes, but thought there was only one negative vote cast. I don't see the 'spread of opinion' you refer to. --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I'm not articulating myself clearly (I have the flu at the moment and, being a bloke, of course I feel like I'm dying, and hence I'm not thinking clearly). My point is that ultimately, unless the review has at least three editors that agree it should be promoted or the majority of editors agree on that outcome (for example, 3 support v. 1 oppose would probably equal promotion, but 3 support v. 3 oppose might not), then the only way to summarise the result is as "no concensus to promote", so the closing co-ord had no other option but to close it with that summary. This review had: 1 oppose, 2 neutral and 1 implicit partial support. I would summarise that as a spread of opinions (or "no concensus"), but maybe I'm wrong. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No you are absolutely right - I wasn't aware of Jim; thought there was one oppose and one recuse. Sorry about the flue - at this time of year it must be terrible! --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately most reviewers on Wikipedia will be non-experts. Most (myself included) are amateur historians and as such we mostly have our own areas that we focus upon (e.g. Vietnam War battles, Australian Army units, battleships, etc.) but it doesn't mean that everyone who reviews an article needs to be an expert on the article's subject. If that were a requirement, almost no article would get the required support. That being said, the Mughar Ridge review looks like it was actually quite thorough to me (when compared to some others in the past, some of which might only get a couple of drive-bys) and all of the editors that reviewed your article have considerable experience contributing and reviewing at A-class and above. All of them have more experience than me. For instance, Fifeloo is a regular citation and depth-of-research checker at A and FA review and is very good at it. Jim Sweeney has been the primary contributor of at least eight Good Articles, four A-class articles and two Featured Articles, while Anotherclown has written 5 A-class articles and 11 GAs. As such, if they have not supported the article, it more than likely means that it is not quite up to the required level. Of course, however, if three other people reviewed the article, you might get different opinions (that is the nature of working on a Wiki).


 * Sorry I did not mean to imply anyone was not qualified to asses A-class articles, I am very sorry if anyone has been upset by this comment. Its just that it didn't seem like anyone knew much about the military history. --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and possibly true (I certainly am no expert on this period of time), but would you mind clarifying what points in the review led you to hold this opinion? Additionally, that being the case, is there something that you feel should be changed about the review process (the co-ords have been looking for feedback on this for a while)? From my perspective, most (if not all) of the points raised by Fifeloo, Jim and Anotherclown seemed valid and based on a reasonable level of understanding. I can't comment on the validity of my own comments, though, as that is for others to judge and I know that I'm frequently wrong. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure - there has been no comment on content except the suggestion to move Ayun Kara - both led me to think there was little knowledge of the area. I think my mistake was to request the wrong review. I think I thought I was asking for a GA and I am not sure at want point I chose A-class instead of GA. I see the difference now but don't know at what signpost I went wrong. --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of having major changes suggested late in the review process is certainly unfortunate, but ultimately unavoidable. The process only runs for a set period of time and relies on volunteers – no one is required to join in – so editors will come to a review at different stages. Ultimately, someone might come to a review on the last of its 28 days and might spot something that the other reviewers did not. This doesn't make it any less valid, so long as it is criteria-based. The likelihood of this happening can be reduced by undergoing a peer review just before submitting for ACR, but it won't always stop it from happening as not everybody gets involved in the peer review process. In some ways, what happened in the Mughar Ridge review is my fault for not having brought the issues to your attention earlier, so please accept my apologies for that.


 * Regarding the final three suggestions I've replied to Anotherclown that the Ayun Kara incident was peripheral and should remain in aftermath; Background has been added before Prelude and its a great improvement. Finally regarding the citations in the lead it was my understanding that it is not mandatory to cut all citations. --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my understanding is that it is a matter of personal choice and/or concensus on a case-by-case basis. I have seen many reviewers ask for them to be removed from the lead, so on the whole I'd say that there is probably more support for one opinion over the other. Sometimes its best to take the path of least resistance over minor issues of presentation in a review, if you want a review to focus on the more important things (e.g. content). Sorry, that might sound cynical but that is indeed what my experience has shown me. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly cut the references and I see others have not used them in their leads but I'm not comfortable doing it. --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of moving forward, I'd suggest the follow COA: (1) work through the last of Anotherclown's comments (if you do not agree with some of them, that is fine, but make sure that you can support not implementing them with valid, preferably policy-based, reasons so that a subsequent reviewer can understand your decisions), (2) participate in a couple of A-class reviews as a reviewer (this will help give you both perspectives of the process), (3) request a peer review for Mughar Ridge, (4) request a Good Article review for Mughar Ridge, and then, depending upon how that goes (5) request another A-class review for Mughar Ridge. Finally, (6) request a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) review for Mughar Ridge (caveat, before requesting a FAC review it would be best to spend a bit of time watching the FAC review process as it can be quite onerous at that level and you may ultimately decide not to take the article that far). Unfortunately all of this could take a couple of months, but I think that if you did all of this, the article would more than likely be successful.


 * (1) has already been done but where will a subsequent reviewer look for this info? (2) ok. (3) Will do (4) I thought that was what was just done? --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding (1), they *may* ask on the subsequent review, but they won't necessarily look anywhere. Regarding (4), as far as I can tell the article has not been nominated for a GA review. It just underwent an A-class review, which might be what you are thinking of. A GA review is actually lower than an A-class review, so the article wouldn't be held to as high a standard. The rating/review scale is: stub (lowest), start, B, GA, A, FA (highest). There are informal assessment processes from stub to B, and formal assessment processes from GA to FA. To nominate for a GA review, you need to go to the WP:GAN page and follow the directions there. This will place it in the queue and eventually someone will review it against the GA criteria. I would strongly suggest requesting a peer review first, however. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think it will find a peer? --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We can but hope. If it doesn't get a few reviewers, we can always advertise (i.e. specifically ask a few editors to take a look if they have time, or place a second call for reviewers on the main project talk page). AustralianRupert (talk)
 * Anyway, apologies for the long reply. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain all this to me. Much appreciated. :) Regards --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Let me know if I can help further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot once again. Your input is much appreciated. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Suitcase nuke / Pen nuke Article merged
Australian Rupert

I've came across Suitcase nuke with a merger on its Discussion page. I would like to see it has been done properly (the banner maybe even removed if it's been merged) and see if you could assess the WikiProject Military History on the Suitcase nuke against "B-Class". It would be appreciated. Anything in return, I'll have a look at. Adamdaley (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam, I've filled out the B class checklist on the Suitcase nuke article. Regarding the merge banner, I would advise not removing it as it is there to acknowledge that text was copied across from the Pocket nuke article to the Suitcase nuke article. That is part of maintaining the article history for copyright purposes so it would probably be best to leave the banner on the talk page. If you wish to view the article prior to the redirect, the link can be found here: . From the quick look I had, most of the information does seem to have been merged across. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to ask to make sure before I removed the merged banner. I asked User:Parsecboy the same question, but haven't had any response from him for a few hours.  At least the WikiProject Military History "B-Class" assessment has been done which is one less thing out of the way on that WikiProject!  I'll leave the merge banner there.  Thanks. Adamdaley (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Praying for you
We will keep you and the other people in Australia in our prayers. Aleutian06 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate, I really appreciate it. My family is doing okay: where we are is quite high, so we avoided the flooding, but of course we are trying to help out elsewhere. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

2/17 RNSWR
I see you've been trying to improve the 2/17 RNSWR page, I can find out the info for you on CO's of the unit if you wish the next time I go in. Any other info you want about 2/17 RNSWR? Let me know, Cheers. Veritas Blue (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks very much for this. The information on the COs would be great, also maybe some more recent ops information, e.g. has the unit supported RCB or RAMSI, or has it undertaken more recent aid to the civil power operations, etc? Of course, though, we need to limit ourselves to only include information that is in the public domain. The information will need to be sourced also, so if you know of Army News articles, Defence media releases or other sources, these can be added to the article for verification purposes. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Location map for Sattelberg
Hi mate. I had a play around and came up with this, let me know what you think. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, but I can't seem to get it to sit right in the Sattelberg article. For some reason the text sits right up against it, instead of having a neat border of blankspace around it. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I see. I will have to play around a little more. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got nothing. Thats a shame, oh well at least I worked out how to do one of these maps. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sounds interesting; thanks for letting me know about this. Unfortunately I don't think I will be able to participate. Over the course of the next year, I will probably be limiting my time on Wiki due to increased work committments, and thus won't be able to give such a job my full attention. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Military History Assessing
Australian Rupert,

I'm here to ask where would I be able to find article sizes based on their size so I can assess them right? For example I was told that from another WikiProject anything over 3000 bytes (I guess) in size would be assessed as "Start" on their WikiProject. How about on WikiProject Military History that covers all of the sub-categories of Military History such as regions, periods, wars etc? Adamdaley (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, I don't believe that the project has a set "size" limit for each standard. It is subjective and varies depending upon the topic. For instance, an article on World War II would need to be quite large to be considered "complete", however, an article on an infantry battalion might be complete with only a few paragraphs if they did not see much service. The project maintains a list of examples for each standard which might help you determine the difference between stubs, starts, and Bs etc. They can be found here: MHA. With each standard also, there are other criteria, of course, to consider (e.g. referencing). I hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OzVC2
FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re assess Arkansas Militia in the Civil War
I hope things are getting back to normal for you. When you have an opportunity, like when you’re not rescuing yourself from flooding! Would you take another look at Arkansas Militia in the Civil War. I have added many secondary sources and addressed most of the “to do” list that you left me the last time you looked. I have asked someone from the Copy Editor Guild to take a look at it, but they are on a big drive to clear up their backlog right now. Thanks.Aleutian06 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate, yes pretty much back to normal now (although the internet connection is still playing up). We got lucky where we are, so we didn't get directly affected. Of course, we've been helping out where we can. The sandbagging efforts gave me flash backs to my army training. Regarding the article, I will be happy to take a look at it. I'm heading off to the gym for a bit but will be back this afternoon and will take a look then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone through the article a couple of times now. Looks quite good. I've left some comments on the talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I really appreciate the check list you always leave. I have had it copyedited.Aleutian06 04:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, its good to see your mini project is coming along. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Balquhain Castle Article
Australian Rupert,

Article: Balquhain Castle

I am trying figure out which period or timeline that this castle was built, the war it was involved in. It's not my area. I thought I'd give it an assessment it, but no idea on the years it was in use. If you take a look at it, and know when or roughly when it was then it would be appreciated. It is a very very short article 5 lines at the most with a picture. Because I can change it once I get feedback. Adamdaley (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, this is not something I know much (anything) about, sorry. Newm30 might be able to help provide more details as they created the page. Additionally, someone listed at WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force might be able to help if you contact them. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cosson
Wow! She can't put a foot wrong, can she! (Even when she does, cf Kovco, it looks like water off a duck's back!)

I can't see them making a female Chief of Army, or CJOPS. Nor VCDF, for that matter. CCDG however - that's not impossible. I predict they'll make her CCDG some time in the next 5 years.

What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: That would make her the first female 3* ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, that is indeed quite interesting. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence infobox
Hi! Since you started an A-class review of the Croatian War of Independence, I would like you to take a look at Talk:Croatian War of Independence as that section contains some concerns I have about the infobox there. Since the article is edited by a number of editors I posted those there to see if any consensus could be found on those, but I would also like to hear opinions of other editors. All suggestions are welcome. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding all the changes in the conflict, so I don't think I could comment on this with any authority. My internet is still struggling to load the article, so I haven't been able to view the sources unfortunately either. Nevertheless, I'm going to try to go back to it later today and try to another read through, though. It looks like you have all been doing a lot of work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's OK. As far as the infobox is concerned, it's a matter of varying degrees: after a brief discussion on the talk page, it appears that a consensus was reached about the list content but it was also agreed to submit a WP:RFC to provide a fresh opinion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Iowa class PR
Can you let it rest for another day or two? The ed17 has hidden comments in the article body, and I would like the chance to round all those up and add them in my section so I can work on addressing them. Also, I would like to leave a message for the other editors inviting them to make one last pass through and add anything they feel is still outstanding before this goes to archive. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can go ahead an archive the page. At this point, with roughly 48 hours having passed, I can safely say that anyone who wanted to squeeze in one last comment could have at this point. Thanks for heads up; I'm hoping that in the next few weeks I can get the rest of the major problems addressed and then move on to my next milestone: an ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tom, I've archived it now. Good luck with the ACR when the time comes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blanche Charlet Article
Australian Rupert,

Article: Blanche Charlet

I've come across an unassessed article who was an SOE Agent during World War II. I've found a source that has her born five years earlier (in 1893 not 1898) than stated on the article located here: Special Forces. While trying to confirm her birth, I am also trying to confirm her death (if she has already died, possibly in 1985 as it states in the article) or any other year. Adamdaley (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, I'd suggest talking to MilborneOne about this. The edit history of the article seems to indicate that they have been quite active on the article and might be able to clarify the date of birth/death. They even appear to have come across the discrepancy that you mention themselves. Regarding the assessment of the article, it is probably a start, in my opinion. Not enough references, details or sections for B class. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I last wrote to you, I've managed to get other people who have been involved in creating the article and it has now been updated a little more, referenced, and I've managed to re-do the Information Box. The discussion about her birth/date can be seen on her talkpage.  I've also got in touch with other people who have been associated with the article through it's article history and invited them to join the discussion.  I'll add the WikiProject Military History template, but I am unsure if I should add the "Intelligence" attribute along with the "Biography" and "World War II" in that Military History template.  Before I added I'll wait for your reply here to see if it's ok to add it or not.  Adamdaley (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, it should be okay to add the Intelligence task force in my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

January contest
Hi mate, tell me when you get tired and I'll do the rest of the verification and/or totalling/awards/newsletter.... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian. Thanks. I have to head out at noon (about 15 mins from now), so if you can take over then that would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Ian, that's it for me. So far there is one entry that I've questioned marked. It has been scored as 1 point (start), but actually doesn't appear to have been assessed. I think it should just be removed and it can be added to the February contest if nominator wishes. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have added: I've removed a couple of other entries as they had no change in assessment and would have resulted in 0 scores. As these were all waiting for GA reviews, or undergoing current ACRs that haven't been closed yet, I didn't feel that the nominators should have their averages reduced, so I simply removed them. They are as follows: SMS Markgraf for Parsecboy, and Bold Orion, Chase XCG-20, and Flight deck cruiser for The Bushranger. These would all be eligible for February. I think this was the right way to handle this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fine. All entries verified now, on to the totalling, awards, and Bugle blurb... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

3.5-Inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rocket
Regarding the assessment - I was originally going to ask for B-class, but then realised there were other sources out there I needed to pick through first (Clay Blair's second volume, for instance), so I left it as Start, but forgot to change the template. I've done that now, hopefully it's OK. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like it was still unassessed as at end of the month, so why don't we just drop it from January and you add it to February with a clean slate -- you don't need the point for January and you have a better chance of improving your average with it in February... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks! (Of course, for me the month only ended 10 minutes ago. :P )- The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess y'all entitled to be a little bit slower than the rest of us sometimes ... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edwin A. Loberg Article
Australian Rupert,

Article: Edwin A. Loberg

I've completed an infobox for Edwin A. Loberg and assessed the WikiProjects. In his infobox, I have put him in as "United States Air Force", while when I look at the Wiki-page of ranks it states Colonel in the Army. Are you able to fix this? It's probably a little mistake, but I'm confused about it. It would be appreciated if you looked at it. Adamdaley (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been in conversation with Rupert on another subject and noticed this -- he's away for a bit so perhaps I can help. I tweaked the infobox ranks to link with Colonel (United States) -- is this what you meant? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with this one, Ian. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:ACRs
Your welcome. I had to do something, the disaster area that currently is El Paso has kept me home most of the week, so I'm finding the internet and the wiki a nice escape for my frustrations over our response to the blizzard. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tom, the world is indeed a very strange place. In Australia over the past few months we've had floods, cyclones, bush fires and even (briefly) snow in Melbourne in summer. I'm currently sitting at home in 32 degree heat, trying to stay out of the sun and wishing that I was cold. I bet it is the reverse where you are! We've seen some of the footage of the snow and ice in New York City on the television and it is pretty spectacular. We don't get that sort of weather here, so it seems like a bit of a novelty, but in reality I imagine it is not much fun to have to put up with. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a native Pennsylvania by birth, so I have a rather high endurance for cold, but I have a low tolerance for incompetence, which is all the El Paso area ranking official have to offer us. You can see what I'm having to put up with here if you like, I've been the person updating the El Paso and Mexico sections so there still pretty accurate. (and yes, I do wish it were warmer here, but it'll get hot soon enough)/ TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound good at all. I hope it gets sorted out soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lost causes?
Having laughed myself silly for a couple of minutes over this, I soon discovered that WP is a very rich source on this topic! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
 * That is interesting, I'd hadn't seen that when I wrote my post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, apparently, there's even a patron saint of lost causes. I am indeed indebted to you for broadening my education. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I to you, I'd forgotten about him. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Roses come for you

 * Thanks very much. It was a pleasure to read. Congratulations and thanks for all your hard work! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

HMS King George V (41) and HMS Duke of York (17)
Thank you very much for taking the time to fix my appalling grammar! Also your copy-editing on the King George V article helped get it to GA class. So once again thank you so much! Thurgate (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, I'm happy to help. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

145th Armored Regiment (United States) Article
Australian Rupert,

Article: 145th Armored Regiment (United States)

I would like to bring to your attention that viewing the above article with Internet Explorer 8 it leaves a BIG gap between the first paragraph at the top of the article to the next paragraph near the bottom of the Infoboxes. I have viewed it with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 and it looks the way an article should appear on wikipedia with minor tweaks. I will also let User:Ian Rose know. Adamdaley (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, I usually use Firefox myself, but when I loaded it in IE8 I saw the same gap that you note above. I've added the fix bunching tags and this seems to have fixed it (when I view it). Please let me know if it is still an issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What you did to the article seems to have worked. It looks like an article on Wikipedia now viewed by Internet Explorer 8. Adamdaley (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of Pulaski Light Artillery‎
Would you mind reviewing Pulaski Light Artillery‎when you have an oppertunity?Aleutian06 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks quite good. I fixed a couple a typos. The only further suggestion I have is to format the bare url references, but that is more cosmetic than anything else. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Aleutian06 04:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

542nd Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States) Article
Australian Rupert,

Article: 542nd Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States)

I feel that this article needs a picture and a Military Unit Infobox. I am able to do the Infobox without the picture and the number of people who were in the unit during World War II. It could possibly improve the article greatly but I am concerned about the "orphan" tag (from 2009) at the time. To me there is enough links in the article to remove it. I'll also send this message to User:Ian Rose. Any feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, an infobox would improve the article, as indeed would an image (if one could be found - I had a quick look at Commons, but couldn't find anything). If you could add in the infobox, that would be great. Regarding the orphan tag, I'm not a fan of such banners and never add them myself, but in this case I'd suggest leaving it there. From what I can tell, there is only one article that actually links to this article. The other links are either user talk pages, or other non article-space links. Thus, it probably is still an orphan (I think the unofficial rule of thumb is about four article space links are required, but I've yet to find any policy writing on this subject). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

192nd Tank Battalion Article
Australian Rupert,

Article: 192nd Tank Battalion

I would like to suggest that an Military Unit Infobox be included in this article, have the US tank as main picture in the Infobox. I am able to do the infobox, but I feel I should leave the template tag at the topic of the article until someone can add more information to the beginning of the article then it can be removed. User:Ian Rose will also get this message. Feedback be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, yes an infobox would be a good addition to this article, and one of the tank images would be appropriate as the main picture. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Help message
Hi Australian Rupert, The following message appears at the very bottom of the User:RoslynSKP/First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) after the Bibliography - In Red "Cite error: There are ref tages on this page, but the references will not show without a Reflist|group=Notes template or a references group="Notes" tag; see the help page." This is weird because there are reflists and notes and they seem to be all showing ok as well as the citations. Can you let me know what is wrong, please? Regards, --Rskp (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rskp, I think I've fixed it. It was a syntax error (the difference between "note" and "notes"). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot :) --Rskp (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maginot Line Article
AustralianRupert,

Article: Maginot Line

Over the past few days there has been a discussion between an administrator (on en.wikipedia.org) as well as Tim PF and myself concerning the English version to use on this particular article. So far we have agreed to go with "British English" and have done distance conversions where appropriate. I suggested the following people may help the three of us that has started the conversation to improve the article or have suggestions. The following users have been named by myself who could be of some assistance:


 * Ian Rose
 * AustralianRupert
 * Parsecboy
 * Nick-D

Hope you can join the conversation on the Maginot Line Discussion page. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Voß Article
'''NOTICE: I wrote these messages on Ian Rose's talkpage and he hasn't replied to them. That is maybe why they sound a little confusing.'''

Australian Rupert,

Article: Ernst Voß

While reading Ernst Voß's article. I noticed at the very bottom of his Infobox that his later work was a Police Officer. But have a look when he was killed? Would that have been in between World War I and World War II? It certainly could not have been after World War II. Maybe an error by the original author? Maybe need's a reference to when he was a Police Officer? Adamdaley (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian Rupert,

Article: Ernst-August Fricke

Once again I am back. I am still uncertain if AustralianRupert is back to normal with Wikipedia. As the article above Ernst Voß I have added "citation needed" to him (meaning Ernst Voß) for being a Police Officer (inbetween World War I and World War II). Another article is Ernst-August Fricke am I correct to put a citation needed for reference for being an officer because it doesn't say in the article that "after World War II he went onto being a Police Officer" (I added a line in Ernst Voß that he was a Police Officer and you can look at his talkpage. I feel there needs to be a citation needed or a source or something to confirm when or roughly when he was a Police Officer.  Adamdaley (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, IMO it is okay to add a citation needed to something like that, although of course it is best to try to clarify with the contributor also, which you have done. Regarding the Ernst Voß article, DocYako mentions a source (Lexikon der Wehrmacht) on the talk page. The external link to that is included in the article, so it can probably be added as an in line citation to replace the citation needed tag. A translated version of the source can be found here: . A translated version of the lexikon article for Ernst-August Fricke can be found here: . It looks like he was in the Hamburg police between 1930 and 1935. A sentence could probably be added stating that, using Lexikon der Wehrmacht as a source if you want to do this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

457 Squadron GA review
I've just responded to all your comments in this review. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I've passed it now. Well done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

9th Division Cav Regiment Photos
Dear AustralianRupert,

I have some photos (about 40) taken by my uncle Les, who was a member of this regiment. If you can use some of them for the article on the 9th Division Cavalry Regiment. I don't have the skills to add them and you are obviously a wikipedia expert. Please email me mailto:ian@cossor.com.au

I am the publisher/editor of the book http://itunes.apple.com/au/book/albury-to-el-alamein-and-back/id420214936#. The original hard cover was printed 2004 and has been out of print since 2006. I have just been successful in publishing it as an iBook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyoldman1959 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've sent you an email. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas Militia and the War with Mexico
When you have an oppertunity, could you review Arkansas Militia and the War with Mexico? Thanks! Aleutian06 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, good work. I've made a few tweaks and added some feedback on the talk page. Very close to a B, in my opinion. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I will get to work on your suggestions. Aleutian06 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries,mate. It looks quite good. Let me know when you want another look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you take another look, I think I have addressed the issues that you had for a B Assessement. If you see anything else, please let me know. Thanks again for your support.Aleutian06 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. It looks quite good. I've updated the assessment to B class. There's still one citation needed tag (in the last section), but it is probably not enough to hold it back. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hidden" not working for IE users
FYI, have a look at User talk:Pdfpdf Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, I thought it must have just been me. I might give Collapse a go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward Innes Pocock Article
AustralianRupert,

Article: Edward Innes Pocock

I am trying to work out what war/battle Edward Innes Pocock was in. To properly fill out the WikiProject Military History template on his talk page. Would like to say I have some privileges using "Twinkle" for Wikipedia usernames. Adamdaley (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, I think it was the Second Matabele War, thus for the template on the talk page, the article should probably go in the African, Biography and British task forces. Hope this helps. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a period of conflict for Second Matabele War in the WikiProject Military History? That's the only thing missing from that WikiProject to be filled in. Could you take a look at it to see if I did what you suggested is right? Could you do the "B-Class" criteria? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is a period task force that it could be added to. I've completed the checklist now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lindemann PR
Hi mate, tks for tidying up there -- I saw in WPMILHIST Announcements that there was an apparently active PR as well as a new ACR and started the archive process, before noticing the Article History had already been updated in the article talk page -- but I forgot to remove it from Reviews when I removed it from Announcements... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No dramas, mate. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding Milhist tags at FAC
John, King of England is currently at FAC but not tagged by Milhist. Heads of state during wartime qualify, right? To tag something, should I just add the MILHIST tag and wait for someone or some bot to add parameters? And ... I've got a general sense of which articles to tag, but is there something I can read that will help me with close calls? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dank, I think the relevant link is: MILHIST. I would say that John, King of England would be in Milhist's scope, so it could be tagged. If you add the Milhist template, it will put it into a couple of categories, namely: Category:Unassessed military history articles and Category:Military history articles with no associated task force. Eventually someone patrolling these categories will add the parameters (I don't believe there is a bot that is doing this at the moment, so it would need to be added by a human). If the project's tag was added along with assessment and task forces, it should probably be as follows: " ". Hope this helps. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers - missed that when I was expanding the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

6th Division (Australia)
AustralianRupert,

You know I'm planning on expanding the 6th Division (Australia) article some time. I've already got a biography on someone who was in the 6th Division, and someone in the 6th Division Signal's wrote a book during the world when he had time. Today, I managed to pick up two copies (1949 and 1954) of "SIGNALS - Story of the Australian Corps of Signals". It has some 6th Division in it as well 6th Division Signals in it among other Divisions. Thought I'd let you know. Adamdaley (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam, that sounds quite promising. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope you don't mind me butting in -- my only suggestion/caveat with the guy's bio is not to use too much detail from it, lest it overbalance the article, which seems in pretty good shape from the general unit histories it already uses as sources. The personal touch from a bio of a serving member can be a great thing to add, but sparingly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ian Rose - I understand. I am willing to just take out the unit information. Not the information just about him. Really the 6th Division (Australia) was not based on one man (this one person), but as a Division. Adamdaley (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Australian Corps of Signals Article
AustralianRupert,

Article: Royal Australian Corps of Signals

I was wondering if there should be a section on signals being used in World war II. Since I have two Signals books 1949 and 1954. Also, would it be appropriate if these books were put under "Bibliography" section? It's mostly about the Australian Signals during World War II. Adamdaley (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, yes I think the article could be expanded to have more coverage relating to World War II. Also, World War I doesn't seem to be covered. It would be best to add the books to a References section and include inline citations in a Notes section, as that is the guidance per WP:LAYOUT, but ultimately its really a matter of personal choice how you do it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Dover Strait (1916) review
Thanks for reviewing the article, the Dover patrol commander was Sir Reginald Bacon who actually wrote one of the sources i used. Ive added him into the text of the article.XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I've completed the review now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Point Gammon
Thank you for your review of USCGC Point Gammon (WPB-82328). A fresh set of eyes on an article always helps catch those things that could use a bit of polish. Point Gammon had about the least remarkable tour of any of the Point class cutters that served in Vietnam and I'm somewhat disappointed to find so little on her service history. After I finish two more of her sister cutters, I will have completed all of the 26 that served in Coast Guard Squadron One. That is the title of the article that is in my user space sandbox that is about half written. I would be flattered if you would peek at it in your limited spare time and let me know if I'm headed the right direction. User:Cuprum17/ Coast Guard Squadron One Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks quite good. I've left some suggestions on your talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike Jackson
Thanks very much for your review. I believe I've addressed all but one (which I've queried) of your concerns. I'd appreciate it if you could take a second look when you get a minute. Cheers, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've responded at the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Stanisław_Koniecpolski
Thanks for the review, I replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Wau
Hi, just wondering whether with your expertise whether you could make the New Guinea campaign template box autocollapse in the Battle of Wau article, as it is always expanded and leaves whitespace when viewing on a 19in screen. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added "|state=collapsed" to the campaign box. This will auto collapse it for all articles. If that is an issue and you just want it to collapse for one article, I think it can be manually forced in a single article by adding " |state = " to the campaign box, and then adding "  " to the article. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew your expertise would be able to solve it. Do you have any New Guinea battles in the pipeline?? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, no worries. Nothing in the pipeline at the moment, I'm afraid. I've been working on a few unit articles recently, but I'm pretty busy at the moment, so I've had to reduce my content work to stay on top of the co-ord duties. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

March contest
Hi mate, I'll be away for the w/e starting this afternoon so given Storm's responsbile for about half the entries (!), I've asked him if he'd mind taking my place this month re. initialising for April and verifying/tallying/awarding for March... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ian, I hope you have a good weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

 * Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist March 2011 backlog reduction drive
Rupert, thanks for taking care of all the recent contest awards and everything, but I really don't think that I deserve one each of all the awards for the backlog contest. Usually it's just the highest one and the placement award.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sturm. I agree, its excessive, however, when the contest page was set up, it was set up with the awards being culmulative. Per the Awards section on the contest page, "The awards are cumulative; for example, earning 1000 points entitles you to one-, two-, and three-stripe service awards, plus the WikiChevrons and the Tireless Contributor Barnstar". I've suggested on the co-ord talk page that next time we don't do this way. We should probably have a discussion there about what could be improved for next time. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll have to fix this before we run the contest again. It really is an embarrassment of riches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Backlog drive
Hey Aussie, I think these are the ones you get; if I missed any, please let me know. Thanks for all your work during the drive! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship
Not to pressure you or anything but you are aware that a vote, whether support or oppose, with no comment as you did, here, is not considered a vote at all so I am just suggesting that you add a comment and I would like to encourage you to vote in Rehman's election. Thanks and cheers. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   02:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've tweaked it now so it has a comment. To be honest, I'm not sure how my adding "no issues" or whatever makes my support anymore valid or not. I won't be participating in RFA again if that is the way the process is run. But anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. RfA is a totally broken process. This was even stated by the WMF's founder which is why a group of users have gotten together to enforce change I encourage you to participate here. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   02:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * MauchoEagle is wrong. Your vote would have been scrubbed if there was anything wrong with it.  Don't feel intimidated.   —  Soap  —  16:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Burki
Thanks for the invaluable suggestions. I will try to improve the article accordingly. As you mentioned in one of your suggestion, I would like to create a map for this battle and Lahore front but I am unaware of how to create maps on or for wikipedia. Are they created using some wikipedia tool of some seperate software?? Please provide some guidance or links to tools, if any. Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you can find any pre-existing maps that are in the public domain, they can be uploaded and used. Also, you can try to create your own map on Microsoft Paint, or in Inkscape, I think. Also, sometimes some other editors will create one for you if you make a request at Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, could you review the article once again. I think I have found most of the reliable sources that could be found and I think the article gives the best view it could ever give with the amount of reliable sources available.Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've taken another look. I performed a light copy edit for grammar and Manual of Style issues and added a few wikilinks, but nothing major. I think it should be up to B class standard now, although I don't have any content knowledge so I can't really comment on that. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial Images
AustralianRupert,

I've ordered and received three images from the Australian War Memorial. All three images are in the public domain and the copyright has expired. I am allowed to publish these images on Wikimedia within 30 days. What is the best "lisence" to use for these images on Wikimedia? The help channel was unhelpful, so I've come to you for advice. Adamdaley (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam. It depends on when the images were taken. If they were taken before 1 January 1955, the best licence to use is probably PD-Australia. For instance, take a look at this image on Commons. I hope this is the information you are after. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first image is "Fraser Island" image has a date of "c1943-12". The second image "Mick Dennis and four others" on HDML is "May 1945". The third image is of the "Krait", no date on the Australian War Memorial, it does say the Krait was used on 1943-09-26. Adamdaley (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given those dates, I believe that it should be fine to use PD-Australia as the licence. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * AustralianRupert - I'm trying to upload the images from the Australian War Memorial as stated above. As for the Licensing for these images which one do you mean? Could you please be more specific. Adamdaley (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam - per above, I believe that PD-Australia is the licence you should use. If you are uploading on Commons, you won't be able to select this on the drop down menu, though. You will need to upload the image with "I don't know what the licence is" (selected from the drop down menu) and then (after saving) edit the file description page and manually add the PD-Australia licence to it later. If you want, I can take a look at the upload when you are done. Just let me know the file name you've uploaded it to. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

AustralianRupert - I have uploaded the three images to Wikimedia. They are named:
 * File:AWM_044211.jpg
 * File:AWM_P02236_002.jpg
 * File:AWM_P03953_004.jpg

Adamdaley (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam, I've taken a look and the licencing looks fine to me. Good work. I've tweaked the pages to include a direct web link to the files in the AWM database as this will allow others to verify the copyright status of the images. A word of caution regarding the text descriptions: it is probably best to rewrite them in your own words as the text might actually be copyrighted by the AWM (I'm not sure of this, though). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, when I upload to commons, I do it in one step by placing the PD-Australia on the "|Permission=" line. (i.e. |Permission= ).
 * Similarly, |Source = http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P03953.004, however, I must admit that P03953.004 gives a more intimidating result! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) A-class reviews
Hey Rupert! I've gone over Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) and fixed the A-Class review, and I'd like you to just quickly look over it. If you think it's fine, I'll put it up again. Buggie111 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Buggie, yes I think you got most the outstanding comments. Just check the presentation of the Watts source in the References section. The location is given as "London, England", but other sources just say "London" - this should probably be consistent throughout. Regarding nominating for ACR, currently we have a large number of articles at review (ACR and Peer) and not many reviewers. As such, if you are going to nominate for ACR, I ask that you consider doing a couple of reviews also - either ACR or peer - to help out too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The two 16th brigades
Hi, Do you think that 16th Brigade (Australia) and 16th Aviation Brigade (Australia) should be merged? (ie, do you know if the new 16th Brigade inherit the lineage of the first one?). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nick, I'm not sure about this. To be honest, I don't know the Army's official take on this. I believe that they chose the numerical designation to perpetuate the brigade, but I've not read anything concrete about whether or not they are meant to be the same unit (I think something similar was done with 17th Combat Service Support Brigade (Australia)). I seem to remember Anotherclown and I had a bit of a discussion about this a while ago. I think originally 16 Avn Bde had been covered in the 16th Brigade article, but then they were split. I can see arguments both for and against. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day Gentlemen. Yes I deliberated about this a while back and I think I made a bold decision to split them. IMO the name was pertuated but there is no lineage. Consider that one is an infantry brigade and the other is an aviation brigade and that one was disbanded after the Second World War, while the other was raised nearly 60 years later. I'm not certain on the Army's position on this either, but I think that the two are dis-similar enough to be treated seperately. Just like 39th (Personnel Support) Battalion and the 39th Battalion (Australia) of Kokoda fame. And indeed like 17 CSS Bde. I'm open to dissenting views about this of course though. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me - unless we know that the two brigades share the same lineage, we shouldn't combine them, particularly given their very different roles. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing
We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dank, I've not had much FAC experience, but one suggestion I have is before jumping in with a review, a new reviewer should probably read a couple of old reviews first. This will help give them a "feel" for the process and see what they could look at, e.g. either a single aspect (MOS, images, copyright, etc.) or the whole article (comprehensiveness, readability, etc.). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

hey can you help on a friendly fire?
I read on the Australian SAS article Vietnam war. It says," Australian and New Zealand SAS killed at least 492 and as many as 598 and losing only two men killed in action and three fatalities from friendly fire." Can anybody tell where does this battle take place? Was if three friendly fire from Australian SAS or new Zealand? 67.164.105.159 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've responded on the article talk page. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oz transition from Brig Gen to Brig
Howdy! I've been looking for informative sources. So far, this is the only one I've found. Cadet Instructor's Handbook 2006 section 1.26 on the 11th of the 104 pages. (Actually, I found pretty-much all of Chapter 1 interesting. And Chapters 2&3 ... (I know, I need to get a life.) )
 * 1.25 At the end of World War I the British Government told the British Army that it had too many generals and that they were to be reduced in numbers. The Army did just that; it removed the word ‘general’ and was left with fewer generals and, at the same time, had created a ‘new’ rank.
 * 1.26 The rank of brigadier general was abolished in the Australian Army in 1921, and it was eventually replaced by that of brigadier in 1929. In the interim titles such as ‘colonel-in-command’, ‘colonel-of-staff’ and ‘colonel-commandant’ were used for officers posted into that level of command.

I must admit, I'm puzzled why Australia made the moves in 1921 & 1929, when the British made them in 1922 & 1928. As yet, I haven't found anything to say when the Australian rank insignia changed - the British insignia changed in 1928. Your thoughts & comments? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Yes that's pretty much what is included on page 14 of Jobson's Looking Forward, Looking Back: Customs and Traditions of the Australian Army. Although there were possibly more, so far the only colonel commandant I've come across in my research was an RMC commandant between 1922 and 1929 by the name of F. B. Heritage (in 1931 he did another stint as commandant with the rank of brigadier). The first person of the rank of brigadier to be commandant of the college was Eric Harrison between 1929 and 1931, so this together probably confirms the date of 1922 for the abolition of the brigadier general rank and the date of 1929 for the adoption of the brigadier rank. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined ACM
Thanks for the ACM, Rupert, but I've declined the nom. Could I please be nominated when I actually have a third A-class article? Buggie111 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there shouldn't be any issues with that. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My Holidays - WikiBreak
AustralianRupert,

Would like to inform you I'll be going on holidays from May 2nd till July 12th, 2011 (Roughly 70 days). Give me a couple days to get over flying back from the Philippines and I'll continue with Wikipedia. I'll have free Internet access while I am over there, so I can check for any messages on here. Just leave them on my talkpage, if you would like me to look at an article or leave a message or something. I also plan on taking images for Wikipedia on articles on here so expect alot of images from me when I get back! Regards, Adamdaley (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam. Sounds like a good holiday you've got planned. I hope you have fun and stay safe. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil
I would like to thank you for having reviewed and fixed many mistakes at Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil. I really appreciate your effort, even more since you did it without no one having asked you to. Good to see this kind of editors around. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I enjoyed reading it, it is a very interesting article. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

67th Battalion (Australia)
Hi, your opinion would be greatly appreciated at the same heading at User_talk:Anotherclown. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

hey
There was this guy name wee curry monster and he kept putting that one that killled three paratroopers on Operation Crimp on friendly fire article. Someone asked wee to change it back to January 3rd yet he simply refused to due stockings. 170.91.194.9 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Woomera
AustralianRupert, I wonder if you have seen the article Woomera, South Australia? The tone of the article concerns me as it contains words and phrases suggestive of editoralising, puffery or even propaganda. Examples are legendary, passionate forward thinking, nationalistic visionaries, very professional interpretive gallery, famous national historic site. The author appears to promote the size advantage of the range several times, and there is other duplication. If you can spare a couple of your valuable minutes, I would appreciate your opinion. As I am a new editor (March 2011) I am reluctant to tag the article, however if you thought it was warranted, I would be prepared to do some work on it. Regards Summerdrought (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sure thing - I'll take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I agree - the article needs to be toned down a bit. It is also sorely in need of referencing (the usual standard to aim for is at least one at the end of each paragraph, but the more the better for verifiability). I've made a few tweaks to the article (mainly cosmetic as its not a subject I have any decent sources on) and added a comment on the talk page. If you are keen to do a bit of work on the article, that would be great to see (I suggest focusing on neutralising the wording, adding citations and improving the narrative flow). If you have any questions, feel free to ask, although as of the end of this month I will be pretty busy and probably won't be online for a while. Also, if you would like to get a formal peer review of the article (where editors will provide suggestions on how to improve the article), you can nominate it at either WP:PR (Wikipedia peer review) or WP:MHPR (Military history project peer review). I hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response and tips. In about a month we begin our outback trek, but I will squeeze in some of your suggestions before then.  I appreciate your assistance. Cheers. Summerdrought (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dropping by
AustralianRupert,

Wanted to drop by to see how things were going. Of course I am in the Philippines now and can stay till June 30 with my Visa, have to pay more money for the 12 days in July. I do check wikipedia when the internet isn't slow and do have a list of images to take, just need a few days to get around and take them! Adamdaley (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, good to hear from you. If you run out of ideas for photos to take, there's a whole category of Philippines related articles that have photo requests attached to them. You can find them here Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Philippines. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review
Thanks! Much appreciated MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Olive branch
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   has extended an olive branch of peace.

I do hope you didn't take my comments about the Harrier ACR as being critical of you (or even of your close). I was only using it for illustrative purposes and no criticism was intended. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here ... I hope my comments at WT:MHC didn't come across as critical of the job you've done at A-class ... I was trying to come up with the right words just now, and there aren't any, you've been carrying us all on your back, and you are of course entitled to a nice long break. There's some specific help I've been looking for that I hope to find more of as I shift my focus to PR and FAC, but that's not a criticism of anyone in the project, and definitely not you. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, gents, no worries - I'm just a bit stressed at the moment with the new posting/move and I probably overreacted a bit. I've had a couple of days off to think things through and I realise now that my enthusiasm for Wiki has waned a bit because I have mainly been focusing on co-ord work and reviewing articles; I definately think its time for a break from that for a bit. I will be very busy over the next month, so I think it probably best if I limit myself to minor content work for a while. Also, there are a couple of articles I've been meaning to write, so I will work on those offline for a bit. Anyway, sorry for the dramas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, enjoy your break! - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Contest
Hi mate, just FYI, I was going to move Buggie's to June rather than score them zero, on the assumption he'll re-nom them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian, no worries. I'm having serious connection issues in the hotel (sometimes my edits save, sometimes they don't), so I will leave scoring up to you, if you are free. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, done that and awarded the Writer's Barnstar. Tks for verifying mine, perhaps you can do the Chevrons while I write up the Bugle blurb... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks mate. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Parachute brigade/battalion
Hi thanks for you copy edits on the parachute brigade/battalion articles, they are very much appreciated. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, Jim, you're doing great work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hurley talk page
Thanks. (Good work.) Unless someone requests me to do otherwise, I won't add anything until after the IP has stated something. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, no worries - that is probably the best course of action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi fellas. I've had to add my comments as I'm gone for a couple of weeks from tommorrow. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I hope the trip goes well. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas Territorial Militia
Woud you check Arkansas Territorial Militia against the B-Class Criteria for me when you have time? Thanks.Aleutian06 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Damon. It looks pretty good to me. It just needs a couple more citations and it would be B class in my opinion. Let me know when you want someone to take another look. I'm heading off on a couple of courses throughout July-September, though, so if I don't respond, you might be able to get someone to look over it by listing it at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks sir! Just coming off of two weeks at lovely Fort Dix, New Jersey myself. Have a great summer.Aleutian06 (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I'll be in (not so lovely or sunny - its winter here) Puckapunyal, unfortunately. Anyway, keep up the good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed all the citation needed TAGs. When you have a minute, please re assess against the B criteria. Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Looks good. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oak Leaves
Thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Autogenerated citations
When some editors group duplicate citations they replace readable references with autogenerated arbitrary numerals which bear no relationship to the work cited. This is not an issue for anyone reading articles but virtually amounts to vandalism in edit mode as there is no way of knowing the name of the source. These autogenerated citations seem to have been added to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign page some time this year. Is it possible to identify when it was done and undo it? --Rskp (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think it might have been this edit: . Not sure, though. I understand that it is a bit frustrating, but it is probably best not to label such edits as vandalism, because the editor in question probably had good intentions. You are welcome to revert, though, if you disagree, but it is always best to assume good faith. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link but unfortunately it can't be undone because there are conflicting later edits. It took me over 5 hours to fix 39 autogenerated citations in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article which were also inserted by delta.

When I realised what had been done to the Jerusalem article, twice I requested an explanation or that the edits to the citations be undone. Not only was there no reply but my messages on delta's talk page were deleted. Delta does not appear to have any other interest in the articles except to insert these citations.

As I found in the Jerusalem article, replacing these citations by hand is very time consuming and mistakes could easily creep in. Is there any way delta's autogenerated citations in the Sinai and Palestine campaign article can be undone automatically? Or is it possible for the Military History WikiProject to protect articles from this kind of attack? --Rskp (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just found delta has inserted autogenerated citations into the Battle of Rafa article and again these cannot be undone because of other edits. Unless there is some other way they will have to be done manually, because this article is about to be re-edited by me and that can't be done if I can't read the citations in edit mode. I hope there is some other way. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I've taken a while to reply. My new posting is a bit hectic - I'm doing a captain's job as a lieutenant, while trying to help a major. Regarding undoing the edits, I'm not sure of another way. Having said this, though, maybe an administrator has the tools to do this. EyeSerene or Nick-D might be able to help, or give some advice if you send them a message. Sorry, I can't be of more help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It just took me a bit under an hour to rid Battle of Rafa of the dreaded lurgy - a huge improvement on 5 hours. But in doing so I generated a list of the citations and the numbers used are quite weird. They go 11, 16, 14, 19, 18, 2, 5 but then it goes 1, 9, 15, 22, 21 - how can you figure this? :) --Rskp (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I don't understand what you mean. I think my brain is fried. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean - I think that is why I hate these autogenerated citations so much - apart from it being two long words to type! The order in which delta inserted these ... citations is as given above. But the order just doesn't make any sense; the numbers bear no relation to the citations they replace and looks more like they follows some numeric pattern. Really - seriously, weird. Why is this important, you ask. Well because when you come to fix them they are all over the place and makes the job that much more of a challenge. The more I get to know these things the more I'm thinking vandalism. --Rskp (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I see what you mean about the order now. I think the program (AWB) uses some "logic", but I'm not sure what it is. I've never used the program myself, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)