User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 13

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Malcolmxl5
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg John • TheCoffee • Tim!
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bbb23

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news
 * Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
 * The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * G'day, thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Hollandia
Hi, I was thinking of adopting the Battle of Hollandia article a few days ago, but you've beaten me to it (and done an excellent job). I'll look to add some more material. Edward J. Drea's book is excellent on this topic, and explains how codebreaking was central to the operation. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick, your additions look fantastic. Thanks for taking a look at Chronicle, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Bullet
List? --Brogo13 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC) p.s.
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's only one "see also" here (and no dash in your edit summary). --Brogo13 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wranglerstar page
Hi there, I was going to create an article titled as such, but it shows you deleted on in 2017. As I am unsure of the nature of the page you deleted, I thought I should reach out to you. UncutDan, 20:02:46 UTC.
 * G'day, I believe you are referring to the draft article: Draft:Wranglerstar, which was deleted as an abandoned draft? It consisted of a single (promotional) quote sourced to a YouTube page about the "Wranglerstar family" of "modern day homesteaders". Probably not much help in creating an article, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Luzzara
I believe you assessed this as a B but it doesn't seem to be reflected in the article; not sure why. Also, do you know how I can collapse the War of the Spanish Succession campaignbox? Its doing my head in :). Tx. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Robin, I hope you are well. I believe I have fixed the campaignbox -- please let me know if that still isn't working for you. It might be something that needs adjusting with the template itself, but on my screen it seems to be collapsed now. Regarding assessment, sorry I don't recall assessing this article and I couldn't see an edit by me on the talk page -- did I respond on WP:MHA and forgot to update the talkpage? That's possible -- sorry, I have bad memory. (I had a head injury many years ago and still have trouble with short term memory. I'm fine if it can make its way into long term, but getting it there is sometimes problematic). Anyway, I have had a quick look and would be happy to update it to B class if you can address the Cn tag next to the casualty figure in the infobox. Ideally, I'd suggest adding these figures to the body of the article (potentially in the Aftermath). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, made the changes. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing Craven & Cate
I just assessed Battle of Wakde. You mentioned that others had laid the groundwork before you improved the article, so I don't know if this applies to you or someone that worked on the article before you. Craven & Cate edited the 7 volume history of the (US) AAF in World War II. However, individual chapters have different authors. I believe that the better citation form is to include the chapter and author, not just the volume and editors. This article certainly has the earmarks of a higher rating, but I would have concerns about a citation in an A class or GA article that omits the author. The form citing to only an editor meets minimum standards, of course. Not a lot of works have this problem (Warnock's book on USAF contingency operations is similar, but who knows who wrote the entries in Maurer's books on US units and squadrons in WW II? Lineagegeek (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Historians commonly cite the USAAF official history as simply 'Craven & Cate' due to the complexity of handling different authors for each chapter, so this is consistent with what RS use. It's also OK to cite the individual chapter authors - I've done both in articles I've worked on, but now usually use Craven & Cate given it seems to be the standard way of handling these works in the literature. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, gents, thanks – I have added the chapter author now. Hopefully, I got that right. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

750th Bombardment Squadron
You assessed this on the request for assessment page, but I believe you missed making the changes on Talk:750th Bombardment Squadron. Cheers. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

AIB / ISD / SOA etc...
Where would I be able to find a history of AIB / ISD / SOA from the National Archives of Australia? Adamdaley (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, does this help at all: ? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing difficulties
Hello, I am experiencing unacceptable behaviour from another editor, one JoelB.Lewis, and seek admin advice. They prematurely closing a discussion I had opened on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then, clearly following me, removed a 'Disputed' tag from an unassociated article for which I had opened a 'Disputed' discussion on its Talk page.

Consequently, I posted a reasonably polite message on their Talk page requesting them to desist such behaviour: (n.b. He's 'closed' the post, so you'll have to click 'Show' to read it.)

Unfortunately, they've again removed the Disputed tag, despite the discussion on the Talk page still continuing. Obviously it's important the tag remain there while the discussion is ongoing, including to draw others to the debate.

I haven't yet restored the tag, as I don't wish to get into an edit war. However, I do not find this either goodwill or constructive, and await your advice. ClearBreeze (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm sorry I don't have much time or energy for these sorts of topics -- and frankly need to reduce the stresses in my life at the moment. Broadly, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about tagging -- in this case a couple of editors appear to have reverted the tag, so I'd suggest just focusing on discussing your proposal on the talk page. It seems that plenty of editors are involved, so there isn't any real need to advertise the discussion. That said, if you want more opinions, neutrally posted comments on project talk pages might be one way to achieve it. If you feel that isn't working, you might make a formal dispute resolution request. If you are concerned about behavioural issues, and have attempted to resolve them with the editors involved, you may consider ANI, but it should be a last resort. Potentially it is best just to focus on something non-controversial for a bit to give yourself some space to consider things clearly as you might see it differently in the cool light of day. Anyway, I'm sorry, it is late here and I have had a long day at work so it is time for bed. Tomorrow will be even longer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Size of the Australian Army
Thanks for your revert to the edit on the Australian Army article. I suspect that this is related to the recent vandalism of other articles on the ADF where the number of personnel and various types of equipment are being exaggerated. I blocked for this yesterday and have seen similar IP vandalism, so it may be something to watch out for more broadly. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, no worries -- will keep an eye out. On 12 hour shifts now, though, so don't have much brain power for anything complex. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gee, you're doing well to be managing with any competent editing with those hours! My editing has suffered since the pandemic due to longer hours, but not that bad. Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't complain because others are doing it far tougher -- but I really miss being at home at the moment. My second youngest lost her first tooth yesterday and I wasn't home to leave a coin under her pillow. Thankfully, the tooth fairy did it for me, though. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Toyota Mega Cruiser article
Good evening (or day, depending on when you can read this), are you going to assess the article again or no need to see if it's B? Ominae (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, per my edit summary here, I am waiting for you to rectify the wheelbase and width figures, which are inconsistent  between the body and the infobox. You will also need to add the curb weight to the body of the article. Some discussion of the vehicle's performance (critical assessment or otherwise) might be in order, also, if it can be reliably sourced. For the infobox figures, I would suggest just making them consistent with this source:  as you have cited that in the body. That source also gives a different figure for the curb weight, which will need to be confirmed and remediated in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will be offline for a couple of days, due to work -- I will check back in on the article when I can, and will try to help with these last couple of issues. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll see if the article's consistent or not. Ominae (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, it should be ok now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Not sure if it's assessed again. Ominae (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. It has been re-assessed as B class, per this edit: . Is there something I've missed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Commando History during World War 2
AustralianRupert,

Where can I get information on the following from the NAA or AWM such as history. I can find images and personnel files, but no history.


 * 1st Independent Company
 * 2/2nd Commando Squadron
 * 2/3rd Commando Squadron
 * 2/4th Commando Squadron
 * 2/5th Commando Squadron
 * 2/6th Commando Squadron
 * 2/7th Commando Squadron
 * 2/8th Commando Squadron
 * 2/9th Commando Squadron
 * 2/10th Commando Squadron
 * 2/11th Commando Squadron
 * 2/12th Commando Squadron

Adamdaley (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day Adam,


 * I hope you are well. Unfortunately, I couldn't readily find anything with a quick search at the NAA; a more involved search is probably beyond my brain capacity at the moment, I'm sorry. I am away from home at the moment, so don't have any of my books. However, I believe that I have included the bibliographic details of each company/squadron history on their article pages -- these are usually available for ordering through most decent city council libraries. These might be of assistance to you. For instance, Bernard Callinan's work on the 2/2nd and 2/4th, Chris Wray's work on the Commandos in Timor, etc.


 * Also, the following archive url will take you to the landing page for the AWM histories: (the 1st through 2/8th are listed under "Independent companies" while 2/9th - 2/12th are listed under "Cavalry units".


 * I will endeavour to update the AWM links on the individual coy/sqn articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red Phoenix
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Euryalus • SQL
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg GB fan
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
 * Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
 * Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
 * There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Conversion of Army Reserve armoured units to light cavalry
Hi, I'm preparing the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service article for a run at A-class. One of the pieces of the puzzle I'm trying to clarify is when the Army Reserve armoured units switched from operating M113s to become 'light cavalry' units with unprotected vehicles and Bushmasters. Our articles on these units say that this happened in about 2006-2007, but without sources! Do you know of any sources on this? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, unfortunately I can't check my books yet, but the following links might help to some extent (albeit they are not the best): AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Apparently, Bou's Light Horse p. 262 might have something, but no date according to my other half. Joanna says she will check a couple of my other books tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've checked my copy of Bou and he has some useful material. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, it seems like you have it sorted. Unfortunately, nothing more came up in the book search, but J did a ProQuest search which produced some limited results : AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Toal, Mick, 1 October 2007, "Land Warfare 2007: New life for old warhorse", Australian Defence Magazine, mentions M113s being withdrawn and armoured mobility and recon roles within Regular and Reserve units being taken over by ASLAV and Bushmaster variants
 * Defence Annual Report, 2006-07, Web section 2 - Units: -- shows some ARES cav units as recon (light cav) while a couple remain as APC regiments (p. 424)
 * That's excellent, thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have the afternoon off, thankfully. My wife has also sent me some photos of pages from Morison, so I might finally finish the Battle of Noemfoor article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun! I'm planning to spend a cold and wet afternoon finishing off a re-working of the Operation Transom article which, surprisingly, was linked to the Battle of Wakde you recently worked on. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Battle of Goodenough Island, "about an Australian amphibious operation during the Second World War"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Blast from the past, but HELP!
G’day. My wife and I have binge-watched Jack Irish, the TV show, and absolutely loved it. We’r now wathing New Tricks which features three retired cops and a currently serving woman boss. Great good stuff. “From all of us to all of you, Cheers!”
 * Dear AustralianRupert, About 10-13 years ago, you were very helpful in helping me improve several articles I had written when new to Wikipedia, Siege of Fort Pulaski, etc. Since then I’ve gained some facility at the Harvard reference coding, the main thing holding back my articles then. I promise to 'return to the scene of the crime' again one day.
 * Though one reviewer said that the naval Bombardment of Cherbourg did not have enough references to the Medal of Honor winner infantrymen. Lots of my images were taken down, oh, well, Wikipedia is collaborative. It was a JOINT OPERATION in the best sense: (a) Army air spotters for the grand tactical battleship bombardment immobilizing shore batteries that might have swung landward (not fixed as British seaward-facing guns at Singapore), and (b) Army forward artillery spotters set up an ad hoc radio relay system for the destroyers, whose tactical gunnery “powdered” German pillboxes that were unaffected by army artillery battery fire. - - - With regrets, I could not advance the article to GA status before my father died (a destroyer gun director at Normandy with its nose inside the “no-go” line to deliver direct fire support at Omaha – several success stories, one oft-told friendly-fire incident among Army historians – but Dad was not at Pont du Hoc, he was at a draw two bunkers to the east.)
 * I have placed a second request for an assessment at WikiProject Military history for American Revolutionary War. Over the last two weeks, we’ve just run into a sort of buzz saw with the recent reviewer. Over a ten-day span, he surveyed only one of eleven CATEGORIES of article improvement.
 * I wonder if the reviewer was just not serious in the first place. He began as though he were trying to pick a fight, and he never did survey much beyond – The infobox had too many notes – which were promptly removed by the author of most – me.
 * Item: opening post he declared for partisan speech-writer and some-time popular press author Kevin Phillips. I let it go. Item: made an off-handed deprecating remark about the article interpreting the “conditional, defensive” nature of the Treaty of Alliance, that conforms to Mackesey and Richard B. Morris, both. I let it go. Item: round and round about his distinction between Infobox ‘belligerent’ and ‘combatant’. The distinction is reflected in the Infobox. More round and round, he quit. No further review beyond the Infobox, having thus become ““wrapped around the axle.” Rats, I “jumped in the cage” with him. "My bad", and a "mea culpa" to boot.

HELP! can you make a review, or can you make a referral for us to someone other than the last fellow? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry for the slow reply. Unfortunately, I don't have much time during the week these days as I am away from home due to work. Hoping to be back home in a week or so, but soon after that I have to go away on a course. Regarding the article, I don't know enough to comment, I'm sorry. I will say this, though. Assessment or review comments are just someone's opinion. You, as the writer not required to action them; however, if you do not, you need to accept that it is unlikely that the assessor will feel their time well spent and will likely not continue to engage in the process further. Assessors -- myself included -- can be wrong, though, so it behoves all of us to try to see things from the others perspective (this is easier said that done, of course). We are all in a volunteer relationship here. Anyway, I'd suggest that if there are points of contention, potentially they could be resolved through obtaining a formal third opinion or a request for comment. A broad WP:Peer review might also assist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On the second request at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, I got positive feedback from of the Irish Maritime Project in two posts, and a note of encouragement from, a ‘Downunder’ coordinator for the Military History Project.
 * I sorted the ARW Talk page to just three items. There are two pending ARW Archives, one for ‘DONE items’ in an ‘Archive 23’, another for the (lengthy, wall-of-words) ‘Review Aug 12-22 2020’. I’ve done it successfully before for three previous archives. I’m just awaiting approval from completion four hours ago.
 * I reported the upbeat developments at Project Military history assessment requests on the ARW Talk page, and posted my intent to ‘sort’ the sections & sub-sections into five groups, following the exchange between myself and ‘Hawkey7’. Notably including #4. Conflict and aftermath – the focus of this article . More to follow, with Talk page ‘fair warning’ foreshadowed by the copy-pastes of the Svejk74 posts.
 * I am particularly pleased with the images supporting the adjacent text throughout. I'm particularly proud to have found a little-used portrait of King George III in his handsome parliamentary robes used at his announcement for American independence in a Speech from the Throne opening Parliament.
 * You might find it fun to just scroll down the images, scanning captions only. Viz, I replaced the former image at ‘Native Americans’ picturing the artists’ queue of two-dozen American uniform varieties, without a recognizable Indian among them. It now features a diad portrait display of one Iroquois-Mohawk regular British Army colonel with Huron allies, and one Iroquois-Mohawk regular Continental Army colonel with Oneida allies. Hah, Ooorah, and Cheers!
 * I’ll begin sorting today, although I still have to work in the garage for my ‘honey-do’ list this week. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Eddie891
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
 * A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
 * A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
 * An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hamilton McWhorter III
—valereee (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

HMAS AE1
Both Conways and Dittmar give the later launch date for this ship. It would appear that the dates for her and AE2 have been transposed. Given that AE1 is likely to be have been launched before AE2 I will go with the official Australian site Lyndaship (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for checking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Goodenough Island scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Battle of Goodenough Island article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 22, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 22, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Rupert, just wanted to thank you for your very kind words, especially gratifying coming from someone I -- and a great many others -- rank so highly... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, cheers. Hope you are having a relaxing weekend. It's been a pretty hectic six months or so here. Hopefully the worst of it has passed, but who knows. I would like to get back into article writing or reviewing at ACR a bit more, but I think it will have to wait for a bit -- I am away from home on course now until the end of the month so I can't take on too much at the moment. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ajpolino • LuK3
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jackmcbarn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news
 * The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (T261630).

Arbitration
 * The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
 * Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous
 * The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
 * Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheeky request
Hello AustralianRupert, You were kind enough to review HMS Roebuck (1774) for A-class, last year and I hoped that you would be willing to do the same for WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Pearl (1762), which I fear might soon be archived. I am happy to reciprocate anytime. If you have other stuff you would rather be doing that's okay. Just thought I'd ask. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry, I've been meaning to take a look for awhile now, but I've been pretty busy with work and am now away on course. I have an hour or so tonight, though, so will try to take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

S.S.Chantala
With respect, I note your concern about including a large transcription re the sinking of the Chantala. I also considered the size of the block; however, I see no benefit in condensing Hayton's own words, thereby (possibly) reinterpreting his meaning and intent. I suggest this is a quite rare communication. Unfortunately, there is little record of the activities and service of NZ Military Police from 1914-90. This is not the fault of Wiki contributors; the NZ Army archives are equally vacuous.User:Dingarwil 11:45 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for your message. I will leave it up to you to do as you see fit, but IMO the incident is a single day in the history of an organisation that spans over 100 years and should be dealt with accordingly. To replicate such a large block quote seems an undue level of detail. For instance, currently the article uses 390 words for the Chantala incident (ignoring the final paragraph in the section), but only 336 words to cover the post-World War II period in the next section. This gives the impression that the Chantala incident is more important than several decades of history, even if that isn't the intention. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, The ‘imbalance’ of words that you mention has caused me concern too. This would be less of an issue if the 1914-90 section contained more content which, for my part, has been difficult to find. Obviously, I refrain from personal comment to illustrate this dilemma. Unfortunately, Provost Div. personnel were temporarily attached to other units that usually did not record their presence. For instance, Victoria University is informative regarding the sinking of the S.S. Chakdina, but their sources are Artillery Div. and Medical Div. records. None mention the Provost casualties or the loss of the S.S. Chantala two days later. During a previous investigation to clarify entries in an MP’s Middle East diary, I turned to the monthly Provost Div. Intelligence reports held by the Wellington Archive. They are simply cards with a brief line or two for each active day. Of the hundreds of cards that I reviewed, “Appendix B” was one of the few actions that Hayton or Jenkins saw fit to elaborate upon. Cheers.User:Dingarwil 8:32 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
-

Wyattherb (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Message left
I left you Draft talk: Emiway Bantai (rapper) message. please look. TechToker (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dates, punctuation, Notes, links at ARW
Hey. Thanks for the recent assist at American Revolutionary War. I'm about eighty percent through a second read-through adding links for historical context. I am finding at ARW that if I envision the ‘international general reader online’ of our target audience at Wikipedia, the visual string of adjacent commas can be distracting. The traditional American scholarly literary conventions do not seem to fit the modern reader's scan that is now widely practiced, adapted to a comparatively spare typesetting convention online, so to speak, imho.
 * (1) Is there a convention acceptable to the Military history Project that allows for changing all dates from the two-comma ‘May 25, 1780,’ format to 25 May 1780 and ‘November 5’ to 5 November?
 * G'day, WP:MILDATE offers some guidance; however, as a general rule it is best to avoid changing date formats in established articles unless they are inconsistent. Date format is one of those points that can often lead to angst. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (2) For numbers, is it to be in the adopted American English format, ‘150,000’ and ’15,000’ and then ‘1,500’ --- or can the last be rendered as 1500 for figures under 10,000 as a convention throughout the article? Care can be taken to avoid confusing dates and figures by immediately identifying a number in the narrative. For example, were casualties somewhere to amount to 1,776, the date would be rendered 'In 1776', but the number would be written '1776 dead and wounded'.
 * MOS:DIGITS offers some guidance here, which seems to support the "1500" above, although I probably wouldn't recommend this if it makes the article inconsistent or requires elegant solutions to avoid confusion. My usual practice would be to use the comma for any figure with four or more numerals. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (3) In the article Notes, if the source of the entire Note is the same as the footnote adjacent, should the footnote be made a second time within the brackets of the following Note?
 * I would recommend doing so, yes, as the footnote in text and the note itself will potentially be read separately. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (4) I know of a caution not to over-link, with the rule of thumb to link a name or place only at the first mention. But in a lengthy article such as ARW, readers may come to the page for just one area of interest, and click on the TOC for direct access. There are several considerations.
 * - Lord North, for instance is a 'player' across the article's length, from introduction to Aftermath when he is part of a coalition Ministry with "Honest Billy" Pitt the Younger. Surely the link to a name or place must be repeated every major division, Introduction, Background, War breaks out, Strategy and commanders, Revolution as civil war, Global war and diplomacy, and Aftermath? Yes?
 * - The second question is more difficult for me to sort. The main body of the article on the American War is divided into eight sections. These stretch for ten screens on my browser. Strategy and commanders stretches over six screens. To minimize linking according to reader interest would suggest once in the Introduction, once in each major article division, once for 5-northern war sections, once for 3-southern war sections, once in American strategy, and once in British strategy. And no more. -?-
 * What is ‘best practice’ for our 'international general reader online' at the Military history Project? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:DUPLINK provides the guidance here and generally I would recommend steering away from duplicate links; however, sometimes I have seen some acceptance of the need for a repeat link in very long articles. That is a view, though, that does not necessarily have broad acceptance and I wouldn't recommend repeating a link more than once or twice. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry for the delayed response; been a hectic week at work. I have offered some opinions above; these are just my opinions, though. Ultimately, my advice would be to seek consensus for any potentially controversial changes on the article's talk page first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, friend. More to do on several fronts, but I am hopeful of a Project B-status by late next week. Besides yourself, thank you again, the article has importantly found a collaborating editor, apparently Canadian or Canadien, for narrative style and terminology.
 * Also a couple of useful edits from, a Brit?, who pings the article at each contribution rationale. He's unhappy with the simple 7th-grader prose. Of course, that same critique can also be interpreted as a virtue: Wikipedia-accessible to the international general reader with English-as-a-second-language, or, more pretentiously, Hemingway-like. Thanks again for the orientation, guidance, and leads. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg John M Wolfson
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Yunshui

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Anarchyte
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Yunshui

Guideline and policy news
 * Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news
 * Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
 * Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
 * Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration
 * The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
 * The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous
 * A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Apple Orchard
G'day AR, as you know, I am working on Charles Green's article, and have been looking at the 3 RAR October 1950 battle articles. The Battle of the Apple Orchard has had a LOT of recent stuff added, and is no longer GA quality due to plenty of UNDUE detail and is now overbalanced with US stuff. I hate seeing AC's stuff being degraded like this. I have a good mind to restore it to the September version, which is pretty good. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've been thinking the same myself recently, but have been mulling it over as my involvement on Wikipedia is waning so I am loathe to get too deeply involved. Also, unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to edit it in any great deal to rectify any real issues that might need resolution; however, I would be supportive of reversion back to its GA standard and then a discussion of things that need improvement in order to establish consensus regarding the approach to be taken. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I think I will. I hope things are OK with you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of Changes to Battle of Yongyu
To: Peacemaker67, Mztourist, and AustralianRupert Sirs:

It seems that your word count requirement, which I believe was the basis for Peacemaker67’s reverting the Battle of Yongyu article to Illegitimate Barrister’s earlier version, has resulted in an error-plagued article. This reversion was not proofread or error-checked before it was published. I don’t know its source, but it is a near-verbatim copy of the Battle of Yongju|Military Wiki| Fandom web page article. Who is the plagiarist here?

A casual perusal of this reversion found the following discrepancies:

a. There are still 15 incorrect references to “Yongju” in the latest revision as of 05:00, 12 November 2020. Refer to my Yongyu Versus Yongju entry on the Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page. b. GPS coordinates are in error. 39°18’17.9”N 125°35’59.02”E is the correct LAT/LONG for Yongyu, North Korea. c. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 1. The United Nations Command (UNC) is not the same as the United Nations (UN). The UNC was the multinational military force that supported South Korea during the Korean War. The UN is an intergovernmental organization. d. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 3. “US” is used twice. e. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 4. “capital Pyongyang” should be “North Korean capital at Pyongyang.” f. Refer to Battle|187th RCT airdrop at Sukchon and Sunchon, 20–21 October 1950. In para. 2 line 1, Songnani-ni is Songnam-ni. In para. 2 line 2, Chany-ni is Chang-ni. A simple cross-check of the Google Earth Map Set KMZ Files found on the Korean War Project website allowed me to catch this error during one of my earlier revisions, which is now deleted. I suspect a copy-paste OCR error in the original article.

There are too many other errors to list in this forum, but you get the idea.

Please enlighten me on how using “subsequently” 44 times in the reverted article qualifies this as a Good Article?

As far as Peacemaker67’s reference to the insertion of geographical coordinates into the text is concerned, Temple’s map of the Airborne Attack on Sukch’on and Sunch’on in the Battle section is too small to locate terrain features, even when enlarged. In retrospect, there may be some unnecessary GPS coordinates (Hong Kong, for example), but GPS links to the features in Google Map’s satellite and terrain views in the absence of detailed topographical maps were most helpful to my research.

Your removal of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s war diary entries contained in the US Army Command and General Staff College’s Combat Studies Institute Battlebook on the Battle of Sukchon-Sunchon and the Kirland/Pears Korea Remembered references on the Battle of the Apple Orchard that contains Australian Maj. Gen. (Ret) David Matheson Butler’s recollections of the battle when he was the 3 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment’s 9 Platoon C Company commander detracts from the detail of the battle.

I found the original Wikipedia article during my study of Roy Appleman’s description of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s operations at Sukchon and Sunchon in his book, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu: United States Army in the Korean War: June – November 1950. Google Search returned the Battle of Yongju, which resulted in my original 18 September Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page entry.

This was my first major Wikipedia article revision (and thanks to you, it will probably be my last) so I expect critiques, not wholesale deletions. Examination of my User talk:Charles Shaulis page shows that I was allowed to correct errors that Users Dianaa and Renata caught. In my opinion, your subjective criticisms should have been accompanied by objective recommendations before you wiped out two months of my work. Although I found multiple issues with the original Battle of Yongju article on 18 September, I did not delete anything of substance. My good faith revisions and additions to the article may have been wordy, but they were factually correct, well documented, backed up by citation, and properly written/punctuated.

I believe that 40 years of US military and federal government experience in technical writing, more than a passing knowledge of Korean War military history from an American perspective, as well as having a father (deceased) who as a 24-year-old USAF 1st Lieutenant flew a C-119 that dropped US paratroopers over DZ WILLIAM on 20 October, allow me to write this.

So, what’ll it be? Word count or an informative description of the battle?

Charles Shaulis (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Charles Shaulis Topsham, Maine

So see you again ...
... on February 28, 2021. Wikipediots can delay progress, but not avoid it in the long run. Not even Aussie Wikipediots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:49BF:F01C:8575:6749:4AC0:7D99 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wanigela, Oro Province
Hi AustralianRupert, I just come across an issue that you may be able to help with. Wanigela, Oro Province seems to have been overwritten to create a article on King Of Creative (somewhat dubious). Can you rollback changes and fix? Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done the honours here. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Australian cricketers
Hi. Thanks again for your excellent work on expanding articles on Australian cricketers. If you have time and/or are interested, please could you take a look at the following pages. They have all been nominated for deletion, but was wondering if you had any extra info about any of them. Note this is not canvasing for the deletion discussions, but asking someone who has done excellent work in expanding these type of stubs.


 * George Cooper (cricketer)
 * Lance Druery
 * Lester Warden
 * Peter Ryan (cricketer)

Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've taken a quick look and couldn't find much, I'm sorry. Added a nom roll entry for Cooper. Warden's parents' names could be sourced to a Queensland government source, but it isn't really significant coverage that I could see: . Trove sometimes offers some newspaper articles that might help, but I think they may have already been tapped already. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! No worries - thanks for having a look. Have a great Christmas.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You, too. We are having barbeque prawns, ham, and a pavlova for Christmas lunch. Hope you have a safe and enjoyable day. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Hans Berr
Hello, Rupert,

I went to add a comment to this review, misclicked, and didn't know the unclick. If you could fix the nom, it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, George, I have deleted the accidentally created review page now and reset the nom on GAN page -- hopefully that has fixed the matter. I will see if the bot has a conniption. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Assessment of Australian articles
I think that's all of them done now (at least those on the list), let me know if any more need a review that haven't been listed. Deus et lex (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I think Cypriot Australians still needs a review if you have time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hammersoft
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news
 * Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news
 * You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration
 * By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
 * Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia turns 20 – Australia and New Zealand Celebrate
As a fellow editor of Australian articles on Wikipedia through The 5000 Challenge, I wanted to let you know that there will be an Australia/New Zealand Online Community Celebration of Wikipedia's 20th Birthday on Friday 15 January 2021 from 7.00–8.30pm AEDT (6.30pm SA, 6pm QLD, 5.30pm NT, 4pm WA). If interested, please register to receive the link.--Oronsay (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hog Farm
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration
 * The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Rethymno
Hi AustralianRupert. You generously reviewed this at ACR. It is now at FAC and I wonder if you would care to look at it again to see to what extent it meets this higher standard? Featured article candidates/Battle of Rethymno/archive1 Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, unfortunately, I don't think I will have much time next week due to the course I am on for work; then I am travelling for a bit in between other things. I may be able to take a look in a few weeks, but in reality I raised pretty much all the issues I saw during the ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am most appreciative of the work you have already put in. I reckon that your work on the ACRs for this and Heraklion were the most helpful reviews I have had since you and assisted my very first ACR over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Charles E. James, Sr.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles E. James, Sr.. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Philly jawn (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, Philly jawn, sorry for the late reply -- currently away from home with work and haven't had time for Wikipedia this week. It appears the right decision has been made and the references added to the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Rees (airman) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Rees (airman), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Tom Rees (airman) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Samichon River
I added definite articles to avoid starting sentences with numbers (numerals) per MOS. When spelled out, the units do have them already. So, if you still disagree, feel free to revert, but then how do you fix the numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkamleo (talk • contribs) 03:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I disagree with the change -- no source that I know of would use such a construction as "the 2 RAR" or the "3 RAR" in that manner (when used as a noun group). Personally, I would simply ignore the MOS on this as it is a very minor point, and adding the definite article here is worse than starting a sentence with a numeral, IMO. One is grammatically incorrect that will stick in the ear of the reader; the other is an esoteric Wikipedia note that the average reader won't be aware of. Anyway, I have adjusted it as follows: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't speak AuE, but in AE, I would say by way of analogy, "The 101st Airborne", not "101st Airborne", to start a sentence. Again, if spelled out, the articles are needed, so not so strange.Tomkamleo (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, the difference with your example here is that it is the full unit name, not the abbreviation. In Australia we would say, the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, or just "2 RAR". The abbreviation would never have a definite article unless used as an adjectival reference (e.g. "the 3 RAR-held hill") . This leads me to another point -- please be careful with English variation. Your changes to Samichon have remove many words which are actually acceptable in Australian English. "Indirect fires" is correct in Australian English, as is "divisional" level, on going, entrenching tool, anti-communist, counter-attack, etc. Your changes largely have changed to US English, which I don't think is an improvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TJMSmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Page mover/delete-redirect.
 * A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
 * There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news
 * When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
 * When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
 * There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (T275322).

Arbitration
 * By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
 * The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish Armed Forces during the period of Francoism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Thomas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF
Hello AustralianRupert.

In No. 450 Squadron RAAF "Squadron bases" section, there some remarks said "det. at".

What is the full form of "det. at" and what is the meaning of this ?

Thank you.--Comrade John (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * G'day, John, "det at" = "detachment at", IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated.-- Comrade John (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news
 * When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem.
 * Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers.

Arbitration
 * A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Military History of Puerto Rico
I've been slogging through this when I can, but it IS a slog. I've already corrected at least one far-too-close paraphrase in one section, removed cites that don't say what the article claims they say, and so on. Lots of dead links, too, meaning I can't verify some of the stuff on there. Just wanted to drop by and say I appreciate the work you've done on the Korean War section. Intothatdarkness 19:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for your efforts -- I know what you mean. I'd like to think we could save this article as it seems an important topic, but the more I look, the more issues emerge, I'm sorry to say. You are doing a great job, though. I'd like to help out a bit more, but my time will be more limited next week due to work requirements and it is a topic that is well outside my usual lane. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. Quite a bit of it's outside my normal lane as well. Reviewing the citations and sourcing alone is a major effort, let alone required work on the prose. Intothatdarkness 13:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for William Lyon Mackenzie
Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Singapore
Howdy hello! I just finished expanding the lead, and see that you are the majority editor. The article is in pretty good shape, would you want to collaborate on taking it to GA? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article; unfortunately I do not have ready access to many of the sources used as I am away. I will only be editing sporadically for the foreseeable future, so I couldn't really assist. I could probably assist in early 2022, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I totally understand, just thought I'd lay out the invitation :) If I haven't taken to it GA by next year I'll poke you again. Wish you the best! CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle at Julin Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish Crusade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
 * The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed to  . This is for technical reasons. You can comment at  if you have objections.

Arbitration
 * The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you! (from a gracious wet-behind-the-ears Wikipedian)
I present this adorable little fluff ball to you as thanks for helping to initiate me into Wikipedia. Just as owners clean up after their pets, you fixed a lot of my mistakes. I hope I will continue to be as curious as that kitten (which I may want to steal), and thank you for your kindness and patience!

IronBattalion (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User going vandal and reverting without [valid] summaries my recent edits
Hi!, please!. This user is harass me with no reason since in "Chocolate", that was recently edited by he before I edited it. He justs vandal every other recent edits made by me and puts Warn templates in my talk. Please, react fast!. --AvellanoAve. (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm sorry but none of those diffs make it clear to me that the other other editor is a "vandal" as you put it or that immediate admin action is required (although it may be necessary later if issues continue). I agree that there is potentially an issue with the fact that they may be following your edits to multiple articles, however, potentially there is a valid reason for this. As such, I would suggest that in the first instance you start communicating with the other editor to determine what their concerns are. Have you attempted this yet on their talk page or some other venue? I would also ask that please refrain from using language such as "biased Indian" (as you did here: ) or other similar constructions as it does not promote communication or trust. Please note that just because someone has reverted your edits does not make them a vandal. Nor is it necessarily wrong for them to provide you with a warning if they have legitimate concerns about your edits. I would suggest that your best way forward here is to discuss the issues directly with the editor in question in the first instance. I would also note that you also are not using edit summaries very often in your edits, so that might be part of the issue that the other editor is concerned about -- if you used clear edit summaries and provided reliable sources for your edits, it might make it clearer to the other person what you are attempting to achieve with your changes. You may then find some common ground. If this doesn't improve the situation then I would suggest you have a few options: work in other areas for a period to avoid the other editor for a while, or consider filing a request at dispute resolution or if that does not work, WP:ANI. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With "biased Indian" I referer that I believe that user was acting in a blatantly biased way and that he was from India, and his behavior was possible because some "tropical things "rivalry", but he participates in Los Angeles Wikiprojects and uses an user page's infobox about native-level Spanish. Ok, I discuss by later this topic with he. Greets. --AvellanoAve. (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain. As the other editor noted, I reverted an edit they had made to chocolate which had confused cacao with "cocoa," its processed derivative. Upon seeing their edit, I did look at their history. Typically I do this out of curiosity and usually results in no further action. However, I found that the editor made a number of edits at other articles replacing "cacao" with "cocoa," even though the passages in question were clearly not referring to the processed foodstuff. Furthermore, I found a number of other edits which I tried to AGF initially as they seemed helpful, if misguided. Closer examination revealed that a lot of this editor's edits were difficult to AGF for. An example is a recent one in Taj Mahal, wherein they | replaced a perfectly fine caption with a grammatically deficient one, and gave no explanation as to why in their edit summary aside from "redundancy." A similar instance occurred in Spaniards in Mexico, wherein the editor | restored their edit that was not properly capitalized and was misspelled besides without offering an adequate explanation in their edit summary. While it is true that I have followed this editor since, it is not out of any desire to harass them. Rather, whether well-intended or not, their edits seem to be damaging to the respective articles they engage with (such as | this recent one). If anything, I only wanted to first document, then properly warn them of their actions before taking it to WP:AIV. (Pinging as a courtesy.) --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah, plz, entregate a la Patrolla. --AvellanoAve. (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahem!, now, ... --AvellanoAve. (talk) Police Lights Icon.svg 21:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just stepping in here: I have just left a warning for vandalism for this edit, and, like  am now looking through some of AA's recent edits. I don't regard this as hounding, and am concerned about their rationale for editing and interacting with others here, as well as their command of the finer points of English. I don't mind that they've deleted my warning - it still stands. I advise everyone to ensure they only comment or act on edits, and not on personal attitudes or biases, or through vindictiveness. Let's work together folks to improve this encyclopaedia, based upon proper sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, sir. --AvellanoAve. (talk) Police Lights Icon.svg 23:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OP now briefly blocked, TPA revoked, and they need to fix their attitudes to editing and to other editors once they return. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, thanks, fair call. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sir, please, stop making disruptive adminship procedures. --AvellanoAve. (talk) Police Lights Icon.svg 05:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This was their finest hour
Thanks for your RM comment, reminding me of Churchill's eloquent phrase (of which he had plenty). I didn't know of the Weygand connection, and was glad to learn of it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries. Hope you are well. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bosworth Article
Thank you for your help in bumping the R.J.B.Bosworth article up to 'start' status. I really appreciate the feedback. I've added several sources where you put 'add citation'. Hopefully they are satisfactory. I'm unsure whether they are, because they're staff profiles and directories from the institutions where Bosworth has worked. I think this isn't ideal, but they are the sources best placed to confirm his positions at these institutions and I have struggled to find other sources. Thanks again!

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus was reached to deprecate Editor assistance.
 * Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration
 * After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Request
Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on WikiProject Australia. I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of WikiProject Australia, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. I understand it's not your area of expertise, but any general feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruby, sorry for the delayed response. I have been caught up with work for a while. I am afraid that I don't have an interest in that topic and do not wish to get involved with it; hopefully someone else at the Australia project will be able to assist you. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The Latino user "CurryTime7-24"
Help!, the Latino guy is there again, is prosecuting my person and making disruptive editing!!! . --AvellanoAve. (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I came across a few instances of the OP here making disruptive editing, the most notable being and . They reverted an edit on a page I had worked on yesterday, which is all fair and good. But then they    about it, which makes me suspect that they're more interested in wiki-hounding me than in editing in good faith or generally collaborating with other editors. I will note that this editor had already been blocked for similar behavior last month. In the meantime, I'll leave things be. They've reverted all my edits anyway, so I'll just avoid dealing with them lest they draw me into an edit war which I want no part of. All I ask is that this editor leave me alone and if they must engage with me for whatever reason, to please do so politely. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, Avenello, please stop posting this on my talk page. It is not the place for these conversations. I do not have the time to get involved as I am travelling with work. If you have concerns about editor behaviour and haven't been able to resolve it through discussion between the involved editors, then you should consider various forms of dispute resolution or post a request at a central board for administrator assistance. However, from a quick scan of your edits there are definite concerns, so I would suggest that potentially it would be best for you to take a break for a bit and cool down. Given that you are currently blocked, I would suggest taking the time and thinking about how you might improve your interactions with others and editing style before requesting an unblock. Also, please stop referencing people's race or nationality in your posts. It is not necessary or relevant. Equally, labelling someone a vandal when they are not is a personal attack and you should refrain from it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Question
I wanna know if you could delete the file KVER 2019 logo.jpg? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KVER_2019_logo.jpg ItsJustdancefan (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, if you wish for the file to be deleted, please add an appropriate WP:CSD tag so that the request can be processed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)