User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 1

Welcome to Milhist!
Thanks for your contributions; you may wish to join the project! The members list is here. You get the free newsletter, a user box, and a wonderful sense of belonging :)))) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've added my name to the list.AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And questions, just shout! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiChevrons

 * Cheers, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I was coming here right now to give you those.... :( — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers anyway, mate. Got to be quick around here. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[[HMS Archer (D78)]]
Hi, I saw your comment when you assessed the article for MILHIST. Am not sure what you mean as all statements are now referenced. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. Sorry. I was thinking about it after I assessed it and thought perhaps I was a little conservative. It is a very good article with lots of detail, the only issue I had was in the middle there are a couple of long paragraphs in the HMS Archer section (when it was transfered from the US) that have only a couple of citations. I have looked at it again because of your message and agree with you - it is unfair to assess as start. It is my mistake - it was my first crack at assessing a decent sized article and I have since been set straight by someone else. For a B, an article only needs one citation per paragraph, so I have re-assessed as B (that is as high as I can assess). Good luck with the Good Article nomination. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I think you might have been thrown by that section where all text came from one source. I may have to split that large paragraph into two or three paragraphs - will wait to see what the reviewer comes up with. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history Coordinator Elections
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems as if some members do truly care about the future of the WikiProject. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Great Articles about Australian Military History! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate. Good luck with the election. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

West India Regiment
Hi AustralianRupert - I have just sighted your start rating of the above article. As one of several editors who have worked on it over the years, I have no problems with the "lack of inline citations" assessment (I must get around to adding them); and the "absence of supporting material" ditto (when I master the complicated Wikipedia picture posting process there are a number of Victorian/Edwardian illustrations that could be used). However I wonder if you could clarify the negative rating for the "reasonably covers topic" category. If you could identify the ommissions or inaccuracies in the article as it stands I would be glad to try and remedy them.

Cheers Buistr (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, mate. No worries - by the way, the image policy is a hard one to work out. I've had serious trouble understanding it myself to the point that I hardly add any pictures for fear that they are a copyvio. Anyway, back on topic. There were no inaccuracies that I could find (I know very little about the regiment, so I couldn't really say if there were any at all). I found the article a very interesting subject, but it left me wanting more, hence the "reasonably covers topic" category. I will elaborate:


 * More detail might be added about the specific actions that the West India Regiment fought in, e.g during WWI or the battles that led to the battle honours they have. This conflict seems to be dealt with in a very broad brush stroke in the article.
 * Details about honours and awards earnt by members of the Regiment, if any - VCs, etc.

A further point about structure:


 * I think the article would be helped by breaking the format down to a few sections, e.g. History (which would incorpate a few of the sections listed), Battle Honours, Uniform & Traditions, Honours and Awards, etc. As it is, I think it lacks a little in the structure side, but that is a personal thing, and it does not need tweaking in this regard to get a higher assessment.

If you can get the citations added and a picture or two, or an infobox, and expand it a bit I think it could become a B class for sure. If you want an example of format that I've used (I'm certainly no guru, though - I've just used formats that others have shown me) - take a look at 2/6th Commando Squadron (Australia), or 2/6th Cavalry Commando Regiment (Australia). These might help - also you can use the coding for the infobox if you need it. I'm terrible with html so I end up copying it from other articles and adapting.

Hope this helps. Any questions, feel free to ask. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks AustralianRupert - that's very helpful indeed. I think that I can make those improvements - with the probable exception of adding illustrations. The latter is a pity because the zouave dress was very picturesque and there are a lot of pictures of it available. The addition of a section on awards is an interesting one - West Indian members of the regiment won at least two VCs in the late 19th century and you may well be right in suggesting these were the first to go to non-white (for want of a more up to date term) recipients. I think the Indian Army had its own equivalent until about 1914 and other colonial regiments were not part of the British regular army per sec. Anyway thanks again for the guidance - I will work away in leisurely Wiki fashion. Buistr (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1719 establishment
Happy to take a look, looks borderline at the moment. Thanks and if you have any further problems let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD's
I closed both of them. No need to delete as they should have been redirected to the correct talk pages. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong at all. Whoever moved the original article should have taken the talk pages with it. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 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) 01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your comments at Wacław Micuta. I have added the requested citations.radek (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Looks good. I've upgraded it to a B class now. I'd still suggest maybe putting in the infobox, but its not required. Just makes it look a bit more classy, in my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm debating between an infobox on him or a Polish Underground State sidebar. I'm going to wait and see if anyone else offers any suggestions. Thanks again.radek (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Happy to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For Your Hard Work

 * I don't think this one was meant for me - was it? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was indeed meant for you, I just forgot to change the name when I was lazily copy and pasting :) You deserve it, especially for your hard work editing and sourcing the John Howard article. Skinny87 (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, glad to help. Thanks very much. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAN
Need help on how to review? I'll co-review one with you so you can learn :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. How do we start? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it under control now, Ed. I've started the process anyway. As per below, I'm taking a crack at the Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay article. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to review Hastings Ismay, and make some good edits. I've consolidated the refs like you suggested. As per reviewing good articles, it's not hard, but I see above that someone's already offered to show you the ropes. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Glad to help. I've started the GA review now. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for having a look at Battle of Slim River, i will definitely follow through with your suggestions over the next few days. You're doing great work on the reviewing mate, keep it up Aussie officer. Tristan benedict (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Glad to help.AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cavalié Mercer
Thanks for your input on the Alexander Cavalié Mercer article. I notice you awarded it start-class against the Biography project rating criteria, but I can't see any comments as to why - it looks to me as if it rates a B-class, but I don't rate my own contributions; I'm surprised it didn't make C-class. Can you tell me why so I can improve it please? Thanks, Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. That was just plain laziness on my part. I didn't take into consideration that WPBio uses a different assessment scale and rating system. Mil Hist rarely uses C class (don't ask me why - I think they should), so if an article doesn't make it to a B it is automatically a Start. Apologies. I have readjusted one point of aim right and hopefully the rounds should be hitting the target now. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As far as I know no-one has reviewed the quality of citations, which is the only obstacle to B-class on both scales, despite the outstanding B-class review request. But I don't pretend to understand the quality assessment system, which seems completely opaque to me. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just picked up your response to the B-call review in WP:MHA, which for reasons I don't understand was deleted by another user before i had read it, but I found it by going back through the page's revision history when I was unable to find my article's B-class assessment request. I have commented in WT:MHA as I am finding the whole process completely offputting.
 * Yours was the only response to the B-class assessment (for which I thank you). Can you help me a little, as I don't know what to do next (except give up, which is tempting). You criticised the citation, but I think the article is already fairly fully cited (34 citations for 21 short paragraphs). My understanding was that when a long passage, eg the account of Waterloo, is derived from a single source, one cites the source at the end of the passage, and that it is not necessary to give a separate citation for every fact, which would clutter the whole article up with cites to the same book. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I'm sorry that you are feeling jaded by the process. I will try to help where I can. From what I can see, most of the article is well cited, it is just a couple of paragraphs in the Waterloo Campaign section that are missing some citations. I do not necessarily agree with the requirement for B class to have almost every paragraph with an inline citation, but that is apparently the rule for B class criteria number 1. My suggestion is that if your have largely used the same source for those paragraphs, you could just add citations at the end of each paragraph - as such it would probably only require adding another five or six more citations. If they are largely from the Mercer book itself, you could probably just put in a large page range and then using a the NAMEDREF multi-cite system add in the final few citations. I think that would then end any discussion on the topic.
 * In regards to the quality of the citation - has this been questioned? I think that it is perfectly fine to cite the sources you have. I certainly didn't question them for validity. On the whole, I think that the article is easily a B. It just needs those last few citations to remove any doubt. That's my opinion, anyway. The whole peer review thing is a little daunting, though - I rarely get involved because it usually means my work gets torn to shreds by users who are no doubt well meaning, but probably take the process a little too seriously. A lot of articles that deserve a higher rating don't get them due to little things. That's my opinion anyway. Hope this helps. If I can help any other way, please let me know. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Afghan War
Great article. Glad to see this neglected conflict given greater treatment. It's a personal interest to me as my grandfather was wounded at the action at Landi Kotal on 11th May. NtheP (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks for the encouragement. It was the first article I wrote on wikipedia, so it probably still needs some work though. I would really like to get the list of battle honours completed, but can't seem to find a comprehensive list anywhere. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the book needed might be this one - Battle Honours Of The British Empire And Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991 by Alexander Rodger ISBN 9781861266378 NtheP (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, I will have to see if I can find that somewhere. Don't know if the local library will have it, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see if my local library can get a copy. NtheP (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate. That would be great. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got a copy off ebay so will update article. NtheP (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thanks very much for your help. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations and temptations
I noted your comment on talk page of Tom Cecil Noel that you believe every paragraph of an article should have at least one cite. Is that a Wikipedia requirement or a personal preference as an editor?

I do grapple with placing citations. One of the problems I see is that I have been told to add inline cites only for Internet references, and simply list books at article's end. Naturally, that makes me wonder how you can check veracity of book references. I am uneasy with that approach (prob stems from my background as a military intelligence analyst).

I have been inserting cites in my articles every time I switch sources within an article. For an example, see Olivier Freiherr von Beaulieu-Marconnay.

At any rate, you do seem serious about citing, which isn't common enough among contributors.

Could you be tempted into writing bios of Australia's World War flying aces? Better yet, could you be lured into breaking out Australia's aces into a national list, as Trevor MacInnes has done for the Canadians with List of World War I aces from Canada?

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, mate. My comment regarding the need for each paragraph to be cited is based upon previous feedback I have had on my own work when getting it assessed by some co-ordinators of the Military History project. I believe it is a policy of the Military History project that a B class rating won't be given unless it largely fulfills the requirement for in line citations. I am prepared to have a little leeway myself when assessing, but must largely stick within the guidance others have given me when assessing my work, otherwise when my assessments are reviewed they will simply be overturned anyway. Personally, I believe that it shouldn't matter where the information comes from, it should have an in-line citation with page numbers if possible or html links if it is from a website. That way it makes it so much easier to check the validity of what is being said. I try to add the citations as I write (usually off-line), that way I won't forget where I got the information from.


 * Please do not take my comments as a discouragement, or an overly harsh criticism of your work. I was trying to provide feedback on how I thought that the article might be improved so that it might be promoted to a B class article. I am, however, by no means an expert, so they were just my opinion.


 * I might have some of the information about Australian WWI aces - I will have to have a look. At the moment I'm concentrating on a number of Australian Army infantry units as they are what I know best, but I will see what I might be able to put together. Probably wouldn't be much more than a stub at first, but it might help provide something from which to start. I can't really promise anything at the moment - I am currently preparing to go away for a bit (going on a course) - so not really sure what my involvement will be like over the next few months. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at my references and found High Adventure - Harry Cobby's autobiography, but it seems as if the article for that is already done to a fine standard. I think User:Anotherclown has a book on Australia's aces which might be able to help. I will follow up with him when I can (he is currently away on a course, though). By the way, I had a look at Olivier Freiherr von Beaulieu-Marconnay. Well done. I added some comments to the talk page. Not a bad article, in my opinion - the referencing seems to be pretty good, so I think it would be close to a B class. With a little bit of work, I think it could be upgraded. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rupert, my good fellow,


 * No worries about hurting my feelings. I am a professional writer, with all the editorial slagging that can sometimes entail. However, I write for Wikipedia because it is a means of immediately sharing my writing with the world.


 * In my own Wikipedia experience, I have never been quoted the "cite every para" rule; in the case of Olivier Freiherr von Beaulieu-Marconnay, it would mean the repetition of citation number 9, which would then become 10, etc. Not especially clear or sensible, nor was the rule I was given for text citations.


 * At any rate, I have had my articles assessed as B class using my cite method. I suppose it depends on the editor.


 * As for improvements on any of my articles...depends on the sources available, and my mood regarding the article. With half a hundred articles in process at any time, I obviously rotate amongst them, meanwhile hoping someone else will contribute. There is also the List of World War I flying aces, to which I have contributed perhaps 80 per cent of the content.


 * I am even now tending to write about my own Commando background, with 56th Special Operations Wing of USAF. If interested, you might check Raven FACs, Laotian Civil War, Project 404, etc.


 * Georgejdorner (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Low profile" 3 star general??

 * Very puzzeling. The guy hardly seems to exist.
 * Indeed! How can you become a 3-star general and have a "low-profile"!!
 * Not sure if this helps at all.
 * Yes thanks, it does help.
 * I will be adding anything useful I find to that page. If I find anything significant, I'll drop a message here.
 * Thanks for your interest and help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a heap of stuff! (I'm not sure what I was doing wrong before.) User:Pdfpdf/Smart2. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mate, that's an incredible amount of work. Well done. Very confusing, though, because I searched AWM pretty thoroughly I thought...and London Gazette and only found those two entries. As you said, I wonder what we did wrong before? Anyway, good job. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

ADM
I've just had a look at your user page; I wasn't aware that the ADM had clasps, but if it were to do so, I completely agree that "the Canberra clasp" (or perhaps even more appropriately, the "RMC", "ADC", "ADFA", "Russell" and "Campbell Park" clasps) would be hard won and highly prized! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Does "Bungendore" qualify as a "Canberra clasp"? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) P.P.S. Damn! I forgot the "Fairbairn clasp". (And Deacon. And Harmon.) Yes, a single "Canberra clasp" (and bars) would be much simpler! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, indeed. I think Bugendore would require a separate clasp, as it is probably outside the Majura-Fairbairn TAOR. But who knows, one can get an Iraq campaign medal for serving in Kuwait, so I don't think Defence Honours and Awards should exclude the Bugendore people from a Canberra clasp...


 * Anyway, I put it up there for my amusement. I bit petty probably, but anyway...it was more a dig at myself. Many of my mates have two rows of ribbons now, and ask how can someone be in the Army for over four years and have done almost nothing? The answer is obvious, spend most of it in Canberra, hence the need for a Canberra Campaign clasp for my ADM. Perhaps if I rattle the right cages, one day it will be struck and, probably when I'm sixty, the End of War list will be completed and it will just appear in the post with a nice letter from the King (I assume it will be a king by then, or maybe it will be a president, who knows...) saying "for faithful service in a cold climate, the Canberra clasp..." AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The decorations routine can be a bit ludicrous. On the personal level, I was once awarded both the Cuban and Dominican Expeditionary Medals, which have both since vanished.
 * In noting medals for World War I fighter aces, it became clear that almost every American ace was awarded at least one Distinguished Service Medal, their nation's second highest award. Many UK and German pilots with records similar to the Americans got nothing; also, officers and enlisted received disparate awards. German pilots had a welter of national awards, in addition to the Imperial awards.
 * The only personal award I take pride in is my T-28 pin, given for flying combat in a T-28. Ironically, this is not an official sanctioned award, but one bestowed by fellow Air Commandos.
 * The service done is its own reward.
 * Georgejdorner (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right, of course, George. The service is its own reward and sometimes some of us (I myself have been guilty of this in my current 'broken' state) forget that because of the way in which some service seems to be elevated over others by people who probably don't know what it is really like anyway. In the end though, the sense of achievement that one gets from a job well done can mean much more than a piece of tin. Still, on Anzac Day it is nice to have something to show for what you have done and in reality that was why the ADM was instituted originally as there were a large number of Australian servicemen and women who despite serving up to 14.99 years may have had nothing to show for it (this is more relevant to those who served in the late 1970s to early 1990s as there were very few overseas deployments for Australians then, but remains relevant to many Reservists, who's service has largely gone unrecognised over the years). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sdar2tn.jpg
Hi, thanks for your support over the File:Sdar2tn.jpg. Its deletion illustrates the shortcomings of wikipedia. Since I don't live in NZ I have no way of replacing the image. Quite sad really. Cheers Ozdaren (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. The image policy is one of my frustrations about Wikipedia. If it were a copyright violation I would understand, but in this case it wasn't and there doesn't seem to be any other images that could be used in this case. It may be replaceable, but as you say only if there is someone from NZ willing to take a photo. Thus I felt it should be kept, at least until someone actually added the replacement. Anyway, perhaps some Kiwi will oblige and take the necessary picture if we put a message on the talk page requesting a photo. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Weesheet
I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your assessment on Weesheet. While the comments were general, they were, by far, the most I have seen as far as general assessments go. Thanks and keep up the good work.--IvoShandor (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate, glad to help. I would have added more, but it is a period of history I know nothing about. Do consider the peer review as it can be very helpful in improving an article (especially if it is done by people who know a bit about the subject). AustralianRupert (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DTG?
OK, I'll take the bait. What's a DTG? (And why would you want to put "that" into one?) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, DTG stands for a Date Time Group. Something that new officers frequently have problems with, particularly when it comes to encoding messages. Get the DTG wrong and you use the wrong encrypt and no one knows what you are saying. Very embarrasing, especially if Rupert's platoon sergeant is the one that points out his error. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now be fair - if platoon sergeants didn't have a supply of fresh Ruperts to embarrass, what would they do for entertainment? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. :-). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not realise that Australia had Ruperts, I always presumed it was unique to the British Army --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * No worries. Cheers, mate. Keep up the good work yourself. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Making it easier to check references.
Re 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. In the old version, clicking on ref 2 took the reader to : "AWM Unit Information – 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Vietnam." with no links, forcing the reader to go look what this is. In the new version, clicking on ref 2 takes the reader to where the reader gets the publisher, a link to the source document, and the accessdate.

When the lead and infobox is also reffed, and more references are provided to show notability, the old version's style reference section will have several entries, while the new style gives the reader the exact details to check the source.

When several pages from a source is used, the two footnotes/references sections can be used, where the footnote say AuthorSurname, Year (linked via the "ref" parameter in the cite template), page (using the page or pages parameter); the surname and year will be linked to the full details in the references section - pointing the reader with a link to the exact details to check the source; e.g. Rudolf Vrba. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t14:22z


 * Okay, but it doesn't really explain to me why there was a need to change it. The reason why I made a separate Notes and References section was so that aside points may be added and not clutter up the bibliographic information. The original style did provide a link and all relevant bibliographic details, just in a References section that was separate to the Notes section. Changing it didn't make checking the sources any easier because it was just as easy under the older version — simply scroll and click. I still don't see how the original style ws wrong, or why it needed to be changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The old version wasn't wrong, but the new version means readers don't have to go find the ref on the page elsewhere. Now, the hilited text contains the info needed to verify the information, and if multiple pages from the same source are eventually reffed, and the "ref" parameter in the citation templates is used like at Rudolf Vrba, readers can with clicks ([x], AuthorSurname Year, EL) find the source text to verify the info. Making it easier to verify in this way is good in the same way that providing a page number for a book used as a source is good so that the reader don't have to use the book's index to find the reffed info. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t14:58z
 * Okay, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Some drafts I'm working on
Hi mate,

I'm working on a few drafts at the moment:


 * Military History of Australia during the Second Boer War
 * Military History of Australia during the Malayan Emergency
 * Military History of Australia during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation
 * Australian military involvement in peacekeeping

which I am trying to hive off Military history of Australia and then reduce that article in size in prep for review (probably only B but my aim is a GA eventually).

These can be found at:


 * Drafts1, Drafts2, Drafts3, Drafts4

If your interested in doing a little work on these any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.

Anotherclown (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gurkha battle honours
Hi mate,

I do have material that you asked. However, I would like to put forward my viewpoint. The Indians consider the Gorkhas to be indigenous; we don't count them as separate even though many soldiers are recuited from another country - Nepal. We have large populations of Gorkhas in Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and these people can be found all over India. We never shared the British view that Gurkhas were a different people from Indians. The Indian Government gives special and unique freedom to Nepalese nationals to enroll in our armed forces, besides of course enrolling Indian Gorkhas. Keeping this sensibility in mind, it would be inappropriate to club the post independence group Gurkha battle honours of Indian Army in your article. It may be more appropriate to club the post-1947 battle honours under the Brits instead. The Gorkha Regiments in the Indian Army are mostly treated identically as other infantry regiments except in a few personal 'A' matters such as leave, pay, pension rules etc. Gurkha VCs, Indian VCs or Gurkha battle honours, Indian battle honours - this is a dichotomy which is a British creation and viewpoint which they emphasised as part of their policy of 'Divide & Rule', not Indian. Keeping this in mind, I would recommend that the list of battle honours be ended at independence only as far as Indian regiments are concerned, as the concept of Gurkhas as not Indians effectively ended for us on that day. AshLin (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, thanks very much for that. I am thinking that perhaps the best way to deal with this would be to create an article called List of British Battle Honours awarded to Gurkha Regiments or something similar. By definition this would then only discuss honours awarded prior to 1947. Would this be an appropriate way of treating the subject in your opinion? — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's an appropriate solution. The regiments were 'reborn' after India gained independence as soldiers of a free democratic nation and not lackeys of a colonial power. AshLin (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Australian Army Reserve
Hello. I've reviewed the article Australian Army Reserve for its nomination for Good Article status My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. Thanks for the review. I believe that I have covered off on all of your points now. I have added comments to the review page. Could you please take a look and let me know if there is anything else I need to do? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 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) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Editcountitis? - FYI
It is curable; there are support groups. Signed: "Concerned" from Adelaide. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Editcountitis - "Editcountitis is a serious disease (see Internet addiction disorder) ... "
 * Wikipedia talk:Editcountitis - "It doesn't matter how high you rank on the List. If it doesn't matter, then why does the list exist at all?"
 * Etc.


 * Hahaha!...sign me up! — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New article that might interest you
Inspired by the French Army in World War I‎ article, I've created an Australian Army in World War II article. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking good, Nick. I'll see if I can help out. Hoping to be back at work soon, so maybe have to scale back my involvement on wiki soon, but certainly keen to work on this one with you if I get the chance. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Cheers. Thanks for all your help with the Military history of Australia during World War I article, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In regards to your comments on teh 130th Engineer Brigade, I have complete confidence in the officer crops of the ADF.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate. ;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

French Army in WWI
Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I
Thanks for the check --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, mate. Happy to help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was really helpful. Must remember to sort my own dashes in future! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Afghan War
Hi mate. Despite the discussion on the talk page someone has changed the article to show the outcome as British minor tactical victory as opposed to Afghan strategic. NtheP (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seen. I feel it should say both, to be honest. That is originally how I wrote it. I have mentioned this on the talk page, in the hope of trying to build some concensus. Could you please take a look at the talk page and say what you think? What do you think it should say in the infobox, British tactical, Afghan strategic, or both? Hopefully we can get the opinion of a few people. I will be happy to go with whatever concensus says. Cheers, mate. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

William Windsor (goat)
Many thanks for your advice about the article. I will do whatever I can to improve it per your suggestions; any help would be appreciated. I am doing all that I can to find a picture. It is also now a DYK candidate here, and see my comment there re. media coverage. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. It is looking good. I hope it gets selected. I will take a look and see if there is anything I can do for it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Han River (1951)
Hi mate, hoping you can help. I created an entry for the Naval Battle of Han River (1951) yesterday but apparently it needs attention to its grammer. I've gone over it but don't really feel I can remove the pesky banner without stepping on peoples toes. Any chance you can take a look, make any quick changes you see and if you think its up to scratch remove the banner? If you think it needs more work before that can occur just let me know what you think I can do to improve it and I'll do it myself. Even with better grammer its always going to be Start class, but I would like to fix this at least. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi mate. I've had a look at it. I have broken it into distinct sections now and added a lead. It had been passed for structure, but in reality it didn't meet the criteria (to pass B class criteria for structure it needs a lead and at least one other distinct section). It should be good in that regard now. I have performed a minor copy edit and feel that it should be okay for grammar now. It wasn't too bad in my opinion, it was probably just the assessor's differing experience. Some assessor's have high standards for grammar, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but can be a bit harsh for a B class assessment. Sometimes grammar can be subjective, but for a B class rating the grammar needs to be shocking (that's my take at least). I have re-assessed now. Still a start probably, though, because it might need to be expanded to make it to a B.
 * I have one question, though. Should the battle be considered to have started in July when UN operations began, or just limited to 28–30 Sept? — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, looks good. Yeah it's still a start, I'm happy with that. Unfortunately I don't have the sources to make it anything other than that. In regards to the dates the main actions were 28 and 30 Sept, prior to that the UN warships were mostly unchallenged other than the odd 75mm round. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. There might be others out there who could help. You might consider putting a message on one of the project talk pages, or requesting help at a peer review (WP:MHPR). — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Goat
Many thanks for working on William Windsor (goat). Excellent work.  Chzz  ►  21:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No dramas at all, mate, glad to help. Keep up the good work. I wouldn't mind seeing more biographies of military goats in the future. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Werner Mölders
Thanks for your help and review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick M. Novack article
Thanks for the advice, and I'll add that description ASAP. As for beingable to link the awards themselves some sort of listing, unfortunately no such listing exists for military officers that served 40+ years ago. Thanks for the sugestion though! Rapier1 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Happy to help. Seems strange that the US military doesn't have something similar. Oh well, sometimes the paper citations are presented with the medal also, so perhaps if you had those, you could use them as a source for describing the actions that your father was involved in. I have left some more comments on the article talk page with some suggestions on how you might improve the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I
Hi would you mind giving the British Army during World War I a once over I have been tinkering with it while waiting for the peer review for History of the United Kingdom in World War I to finish. I think its almost there but as ever a fresh pair of eyes would be appreciated and I have been impressed with your comments on other articles. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. Yes, I'll take a look at it for you. I've just had a quick look so far and it is looking very good. I've made a few minor tweaks, but nothing major. I will take another look a bit later. I've got to head off for PT soon, but should have some free time after that (around 03:00 UTC), unless something major happens. Based on recent events around here, anything could happen. Might not even make it back from the gym..;-).
 * Okay, done. Good effort so far, I feel it will be able to go to GA at least, if not higher if you are able to put the time in. I've left my comments on the article talk page. Hope these are helpful. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The A class review for the British Army during World War I suggested the article was on the large side and could be split - that being the case I have removed the weapons section to its own article British Army uniform and equipment in World War I you may wish to revisit and article to confirm your support for A class. Thanks for your time and effort --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, Jim. Yes, I still support it for A class. You have done a very good job in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to saying in my reply to your keep vote and that's probably my fault. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I know exactly what you were saying. If you reread my response again, I was basically saying that in essence, you were agreeing with the merge comments that the article was against policy, but because you like the article (click on the link), you think it should stay. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. Sorry if I responded badly. I was having a bad day at work and was in a 'kick the dog' kind of mood. Not literally, of course—I don't have one...;-). Essentially you are right, I think (because from my understanding the guidelines on arguments to avoid at AFD are often contradictory, much like the Australian Army's Pay and Conditions Manual, which was what was giving me such a headache the other day), but part of me feels that merging the article wouldn't really retain the same information that the separate article would. Also, it does not sit well with me that the victim doesn't warrant an article, while the criminals do. To me that doesn't seem right. This may well be specious reasoning (given the rules on notability), but I feel that in deleting the article we are in danger of being seen to be sanitising history. I don't think that is actually the case, but it certainly could be seen as such by certain sections of the community. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

Iqinn (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate. I will take a look and add in my two cents. I voted to keep this subject at AfD, rather than merge, however, it seems that the closing admin has reached a decision of merge. In my opinion this is the correct decision, based on existing WP policy and although I do not necessarily always agree with the notability policy, I feel that the admin has done everything correctly. It is not an outright delete and their decision will see most of the content preserved. The subject will remain a bluelink (as opposed to red). Thanks for inviting me to participate in the debate, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gurkha
Dear Friend,

Sorry, really apologise, I will try and be more careful about that. I will try and learn how to just take care of the history section, since you and others are doinga fine job on the other aspects of the Gurkha page.

Again really apologise.

Sincerely

Gorkhali (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, mate, cheers. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your efforts on the article by the way, as it has to be one of the most vandalised pages I've come across, which can make it hard to have the article progress at all. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Mullineux
Thanks for your support and guidance on the above page, but I think I'm spent now. I only thought this would be little more than a stub when I started it, but you know how these things snowball. I can't seem to find any more information from my sources, but I'll head back if I come across anything. Thanks again. FruitMonkey (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. Yes, I know what you mean. Its looking pretty good now, though. I will see if I can find those last couple of citations and then it should be up to a B class standard. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Goat Star
The award is documented in User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks great! That will definately go on my user page, cheers. I just wonder where it sits in the order of wear... — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

John Howard
Saw your request on Skinny's user page. Don't forget the London Gazette which will give more info on when he was commissioned and promoted, and the award of his DSO (search page here if you don't already know). David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that, mate. Yes, I will add those details in when I can get it to load. I've been having troubles with the site all day for some reason. Just won't load for me. Probably the idiot between the chair and the keyboard... — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally got it working and found the appointment to second lieutenant...then realised you'd already added it in. Cheers for that. Looks good. I'm trying to find the promotions to lieutenant, captain and major in the Gazette, but not having much luck, so if your keen... — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They'll probably be under R. J. Howard, typically only initial commission and honours/decorations use full names. Normaly I'd try service number as well, but that seems to have got completely mangled, and not be turning anything up.  David Underdown (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wotcha! I'm technically on a wiki-break, but...well, you can see :) I want a nice easy projectm and Howard looks great; I just got a new laptop as the old one died and I'm still getting used to it, but I have a few thoughts: vary the sources with my own to avoid it all being Ambrose, which will also let me add more detail; use the Pegasus Diaries, which my local library has; and I'll try and find a picture. How does that sound? Skinny87 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, mate. That sounds great. I appreciate the help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 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) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow!
You have very quickly become very adept, and seem to be having great fun. Good stuff! (Is it anything to do with those ice-cold winters in CBR, and the fact that winter is never a TV ratings period?) Enjoy! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) (P.S. How's the campaign for the "Canberra" clasp for the ADM progressing?)


 * Cheers, mate. You're right about the TV. I'd been hoping to watch some cricket, but so far high def TV hasn't been fully rolled out in this 'country' town...then my wife will go from being a wiki widow to a cricket widow.


 * I find that I'm still learning new things on wiki almost every day. The ethusiasm has waned a bit as a result of recent vandalism on a few of the articles I've been working on, so I've been taking a bit of a break from writing anything major (having said that, I found that I wrote an article from scratch the other day just because I found a VC citation in the London Gazette and realised there was no article about the incident). So I guess these things go in cycles.


 * My Canberra campaign clasp campaign (that's a mouthful!) has failed, it seems, but one day, maybe! — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sgt W.F. Hacking
Hello Rupert. Rather fast editing on the AATTV, as I just put the item in. I've included the remarks from the next of kin alongside your official history. The reason is that many years ago I interviewed a former officer of the team who had been recommended to me. In talking about the unit I mentioned the first death in the unit, WO Conroy. This gentleman told me of the Sgt, who he strongly implied had been done in by the South Vietnamese. (he had lots of other interesting stories of the non military business affairs of the LLDB).

I had never mentioned it, but found the next of kin's remarks worthy of consideration. Apparently nothing was released about it to my knowledge in 1993 when the thirty rule thing would have come up for release.Foofbun (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. mate. The problem with the citation that you put in is that it does not meet wikipedia's requirement as being reliable source. It is simply an opinion page, which while quite possibly being correct are frowned upon by the community. While I can sympathise with the next of kin, and I am not disputing what you say, unless that is published in a reliable third party source, then it cannot be included in the article. I have pretty much kept what you put in there, simply replaced it with a source that is considered more reliable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rupert (btw, I know you mean no offence but please don't use the 'm' word to me; 'mateship' is Strine for 'loyalty to your dubious friends and their illegal activities over loyalty to the law'). As you can see I didn't include the NOK's theories in the actual article, but referred it as a source that people can look at. For example in Wikipedia there is no reference to a well known film producer's involvement in an international vice ring, but there is a reference to an article that readers can look at for themselves to make up their own mind. No problems with your including the official source as well. CheersFoofbun (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fritz Beckhardt
Somehow, your April 19 remarks about Beckhardt slipped past me until now. You might be interested to know that the article has grown since your comment.

You are entirely correct about needing citations in the article. However, grubbing up the history of a man whose history has been systematically erased was so difficult, I did not deal with citations at the time I wrote the article. I have returned to do so.

I must note a difference in our citation styles. I place a citation at the end of the information I gained from a source. That may be after half a dozen words, or half a dozen paragraphs, but you can always check me out because I add cites at the change of source.

Your "cite every para" rule would, in some cases, have me adding duplicate cites to no real purpose. I do try to insert my cites as I write; Beckhardt was an exception because he was such a head-bendingly difficult subject.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, George. The comment about citing ever paragraph is not my personal preference, its a Military History project requirement for a higher article rating. Basically they won't rate anything higher than a start class unless it has a cite for every paragraph. Even if they are from the same source, because in reality while you know where you got the info from, someone coming to it later on doesn't necessarily know that. In some ways this requirement prevents articles that deserve a higher rating from achieving it, but it also helps the development process. Having said all this, I do not necessarily wholly agree with the policy, but am bound to follow it. Cheers and good editing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another bar to your Chevrons

 * Thanks very much, Roger. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your post on the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) and reference to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
I cannot stress enough how disappointed I am to read an article from a serving officer in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) making reference to and making light of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a joke. On top of this you along with others have degraded an award on the Australian honours and awards list with no concern for what this award may mean to others. I would expect that this is not acceptable from a commissioned officer. If you aren’t prepared to stand in front of any unit in the defence force on a parade ground and publicly repeat what you have said on these pages it shouldn’t be said at all.

I know of families that hold the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) in high regard. The context for these families is that a loved one has died in the service of their country, this award is what they have in acknowledgement of this service and should not be degraded in this or anyway. I personally wear this medal with pride and am grateful my country has chosen to honour its defence personal in this way. Recently other countries have sort to use this award as an example to honour their defence service members both past and present.

To make a serious medical condition such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) the butt of a joke surely shows no respect for any soldier, sailor or airman that has had the misfortune to suffer this condition.

I simple say if you have no respect or see no value in the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) don’t wear it and pass judgement on the values of those who do. I also say never make a joke of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as those of us that have had to carry a wounded mate on a stretcher, making every attempt save their life think you have no right to do so. Rememberthefallen (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Rememberthefallen,
 * Could you please be specific about what you are referring to?
 * (I make no comment about PTSD as I don't know what you are referring to.)
 * I do not believe that, at any time, "Rupert", or "others" (presumably me) have "degraded an award on the Australian honours and awards list with no concern for what this award may mean to others."
 * What I do know that Rupert has done, is (somewhat wistfully) pointed out that his 4 years of service in Canberra has not been, and will not be, acknowledged by any awards, whereas ADF personnel who saw 7 days overseas service in Iraq the 1990s are eligible for several awards. (e.g. Australian Service Medal, "to recognise prescribed service in peacekeeping and non-warlike operations".)
 * I do not understand how you can classify these remarks as "degrading" the Australian Defence Medal.
 * I am forced to assume you must be referring to some other remarks that I am not aware of.
 * If this is not the case, I would prefer you either explain your statement, or withdraw it and apologise to "Rupert".
 * Respectfully, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello all. The PTSD comment refers to a comment on my user page in which I indicated that I felt that I might have PTSD from my time at RMC. Firstly, I would like to say that I'm sorry if I offended anyone by including this comment on my User page, and I certainly didn't mean to make light of what is certainly a serious condition. However, I feel it would be a sad world and indeed a very unhappy army, if we were not allowed to have a joke now and again. The fact of the matter is that in many regards many soldiers display signs of PTSD simply from the training they undertake (but that is an aside point that is probably not relevant to the debate). I will nevertheless remove this from my User page.
 * I am not really certain what comments I have made that denigrate the ADM or anyone that wears it proudly. If you refer to the comment about the "Canberra Clasp" it was more a comment reflecting on my own career rather than the award. The comment about it being called the "Canberra Campaign medal" on the ADM page were in response to a question posed by someone else, and the comments above about the Mickey Mouse medal were not posted by me, but by others who did not sign their posts. If you actually look at the other comments I made on it on my talk page, you would have noticed that I said this:
 * ...Still, on Anzac Day it is nice to have something to show for what you have done and in reality that was why the ADM was instituted originally as there were a large number of Australian servicemen and women who despite serving up to 14.99 years may have had nothing to show for it (this is more relevant to those who served in the late 1970s to early 1990s as there were very few overseas deployments for Australians then, but remains relevant to many Reservists, who's service has largely gone unrecognised over the years. (16 April 2009)
 * Nevertheless, I am sorry if my comments offended you and I will try to be more careful in the future. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Less public forms of communication
FYI:

1) If you go to User:Pdfpdf or User talk:Pdfpdf, on the left side are four boxes (navigation, search, interaction and toolbox); in the toolbox box, the fifth entry is "E-mail this user". You will notice that such an entry does not appear on your user pages. If you wish to enable it, my preferences at the very top of the page displays a page which has an "E-mail options" box on it. (Don't forget to tick the "Enable e-mail from other users" box, like I did, and then wondered why it still wasn't working!)

2) Your unjustifiably indignant "friend" has made only one edit, the one on this page. I'm always wary of such situations. Don't lose your sense of humour because someone makes vague anonymous unjustified hit-and-run accusations.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, mate. Yes, I have enabled that now. Thanks for showing me that. The user above (with a slightly different user name) has also left a message on the ADM page, due to a comment I'd left there in response to a question about colloquial names for the ADM. In retrospect I see that my comment was possibly ill advised, or not worded as clearly as it could have been. Evidently this user has strong feelings about this subject, which is probably fair enough in the circumstances. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Also a one edit account, though that time he at least explained what he was complaining about, and yes, I would agree that Evidently this user has strong feelings about this subject, which is probably fair enough in the circumstances.
 * Never-the-less, I'm not sure what he thinks he'll achieve by
 * unjustifiably insulting you,
 * by accusing you of things you didn't do,
 * by accusing you of things you didn't say, and
 * by implying you said the opposite of what you actually did say.
 * And also, the ADF/AIF/ANZACs have a respected reputation for making light of serious, dangerous and/or unpleasant situations - nobody I am aware of considers this to be "a joke", nor do they consider it to "degrade or make fun" of anything.
 * I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues continue to make light-hearted observations.
 * Sincerely, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers for your support, mate. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cologne war
Rupert, would you take another look at the Cologne war, please? I've added more citations. I think it meets B scale now. thanks --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Auntieruth, good work. I've updated the assessment to B class. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mil. history assessment
Hi, AustralianRupert! I think you've assessed a couple of my mil. hist. biographies in the past few days, which is really cool. One question – exactly is the supporting materials criterion? Thanks, PasswordUsername (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi PasswordUsername. The supporting materials criterion refers to use of images, infoboxs and diagrams etc. to illustrate an article and to break up the text. It can be a bit subjective with higher requirements placed on larger articles. For example a small article might meet the criterion with just one image or an infobox, while a large article might have a couple of photographs but because it has large unbroken sections of prose probably doesn't meet the criterion.
 * If I've made an error in assessing one of your articles I'd be happy to take another look. Just let me know which article. We've had a bit of a back log in the Mil hist project so I've been trying to pump through them quickly, which probably means I have not spent as long assessing each individual article as I would like. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining - I was just curious as far as the criterion. You did not make any error. I made a few start-class articles and I'm currently looking for free or fair-use images, which would expalain the supporting materials criteria evaluations. I think you did a very balanced job in each of the cases, and from the looks of it, your participation is really doing a lot for the project. (I've seen work in other WikiProject articles go unevaluated for eons.) PasswordUsername (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)