User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 4

James B. McCreary
Thanks for your comments during the recent WP:MILHIST A-class review of James B. McCreary. If you are interested, I've now listed the article at WP:FAC. Your comments and suggestions for further improvement would again be welcome. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, no worries at all. I don't tend to review at FAC, though, as my past experiences have been less than enjoyable. Nevertheless, I wish you the best of luck with it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Contest
Hi mate, I was about to score Parsec's entries and do the tallies but can you remind me, do we always remove articles thhat haven't progressed in their scores, i.e. effectively avoiding scoring people zero? I just can't recall whether it was that straighforward... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian, my memory is not good at the moment (a bit tired from work), but I think that is how I've been doing it. Sorry, I can't be clearer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what I did was move all non-scoring entries still under some sort of review as at midnight 30 June to next July's contest table (including one of Parsec's that had moved up a level but only on 2 July), and left two with zero scores from Parsec's check/verification run that had failed reviews and had not been renominated, because it didn't seem to make sense pushing them into next month at this stage. Feel free to tweak if you think that was complicating things... Also looks like Ed and I have tied for first in a low-scoring contest so if you have a sec perhaps you can tally (won't take long!) and throw out the Chevrons rather than me. Djmaschek was third and I can award him the Writer's Barnstar... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian, yes, I will do this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done - I also awarded the Writer's Barnstar and updated the newsletter. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- ever reliable... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy
Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I'm not really knowledgable on the Ambassador program, but I think your proposal looks fine. It makes sense to start with the best. Additionally, if you educate the professor, they could perhaps be encouraged to share the information that you provide with their students. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone in the project knows already, but these can be handy so that everyone gets the picture ...

 * Thank you! I've not got one of those before. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't even know we had that -- seconded! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for recognising my work – I feel really honoured to receive an award and be recognised by the community. Anyway, does "Review" mean that I review others' work, or others review mine? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, no worries, it means that you reviewed someone else's work. The award is based upon the quarterly tallies here, which track editor involvement in reviews. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

 * Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
G'Day I have just been reading the DYK nominations and it seems 7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia) is waiting a response from yourself. That aside hope your return to the colours is going OK. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim. Thanks for letting me know. I didn't actually nominate it, though; I think someone else did. Unfortunately, I don't actually have the time to review someone else's DYK at the moment - I'm heading off on a couple of courses on the weekend so I'm stuck doing pre-course reading and assignments. Other than being quite busy and finding ways to annoy WO1s (never a good thing to do when one is a subaltern), everything is going well in "green". Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war ongoing
Hi! There's an edit war going on at Battle of Cortenuova. A recent user is endlessly reverting my recent expansion of what was a mere stub, to a version based on 19th century, non-Italian sources, full of some strange features such as unjustified capitalization, wrong naming of Italian cities and titles etc. Can you help? --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also his nice behaviour in this new edit. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's also missing to follow any invitation to give a mere check to WP:Manual of Style at least... the result is that his version starts with a "Prelude" section without any lead introduction. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I don't really have time to look into this in too much depth. My suggestion is to approach an admin and see what their take is. You can post a request here WP:ANI, if you feel the situation warrants it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:OPN
Do I recall that you said this was taught in one of your classes? Do you by chance have a map or detailed description saying who went where when? The Band of Brothers book and TV series don't nail everyone down. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes we looked at this at RMC. There was a pretty good graphic with proper mil symbols, but I don't have access to it. Also, it was created using Army-owned software by military personnel as part of course material produced through the DTM, so it is copyrighted. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when someone does an animation, perhaps you can look at it to see if anything looks off. Just the fact that the RMC did something cool like that helps support my position that that level of detail is warranted in our article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force
Hi, I'm going to have another (and now very belated) go at bringing this article up to date over the next few days. I haven't been through it carefully yet, but the things which most obviously need to be fixed is the Defence expenditure and procurement and Current priorities sections, which are about 4 years out of date(!). All the information about deployments and equipment holdings is also outdated, though only by a year or two. The 'Assessment of capabilities' section needs an update, but is probably basically OK (the ADF hasn't gained any significant new capabilities in the last few years, and these would have to be offset against the collapse of its amphibious warfare capability anyway). I'd like to add a section on the role of reservists, but it's really hard to find a comprehensive source of information on this topic! Is there anything else which you think is crying out to be updated? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nick, good luck with this project. It would be great to see it updated. I think the section on women in the ADF will need to be updated in light of recent announcements from the Army about service in combat arms such as the infantry, etc. The domestic responsibilities section could possibly be expanded (but only a little bit) to mention recent DACC operations: Queensland Flood Assist, Yasi Assist, etc. If you include a section about the role of the Reserves, can I suggest you mention efforts by the government to support employers to release personnel for service, the use of Reservists on peacekeeping operations and 1 Cdo Regt deployments, and round out for Regular unit deployments. In regards to sources, you might consider using some media releases and newspaper articles, but I agree, there are very few comprehensive sources. I'm heading off on course tomorrow morning, so unfortunately I won't be much help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I'll take those points into account. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 7th Combat Service Support Battalion (Australia)
Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessing WikiProject Military / WikiProject Miliary (Australia)
User:AustralianRupert,

I've decided to come back and started to assess the Military Articles. I will be still doing the "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" re-write but it's on my subpage in "Biographies" not the actual article itself. Hope to see more of you on Wikipedia! Adamdaley (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew Cumming - Peer Review?
Could you "Peer Review" Talk:Andrew Cumming Biography? I would appreciate it. Adamdaley (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, sorry I'm very busy at the moment. I'm on an Army course at the moment and don't have much time available for Wiki anymore. I've had a quick look at the article and I think that it is looking pretty good. It will need more detail to progress beyond C class, though, IMO. Date of birth, early life, etc. Sorry, I couldn't be of more assistance. User:HJ Mitchell is a bit of an expert on British generals and he does good work, so he may be able to provide more assistance. Good to see you back by the way. Keep up the good work. I appreciate it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

22nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment
Would mind doing little copyedit/assessment on this article? 22nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment, Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Damon. I've had a look and done a quick copy edit. I feel it needs a couple more citations for B class, but I've assessed as C class. I've added tags where I think they are needed. Please check that you agree with my edits and that I didn't change anything incorrectly. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks you Sir! Hope you are having a good summer!Aleutian06 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Katia Thanks
Thanks once more for your interest and your valuable suggestions which have been incorporated. Regards --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent copyedit work its are very much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, Roslyn. I'm sorry I won't get to finish it off. I'm off on an Army course for a month and won't have access until late September. I wish you all the best with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its been successful largely due to your help - much appreciated. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox New Guinea
Hi, I was just having a look at some articles and noticed that the template Template:Campaignbox_New_Guinea appears to have been changed and some battles renamed in the template to 1st Rabaul and the like. I do not know of them being called as such or whether this is a WP guideline, etc. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes that does seem strange. I don't know of any reliable sources that refer to those topics in that manner. I have reverted the changes and asked the editor who made them to discuss on the template talk page. It might be that they know something we don't, in which case they can simply revert my revision after the discussion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will be interesting to hear a response from the editor. Newm30 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your note on WT:MHCOORD
You said you were leaving for a month, so I just want to wish you good luck and safe travels. We'll keep the wiki running until you get back. :-) Would you like me or someone else to nominate you for coordinator while you are away, or will you have intermittent access that will allow you to do the honors yourself? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ed. Thanks, mate, I appreciate the support. It will be an interesting course. Mainly Reservists on the panel; I will be one of the few Regulars. I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing, but anyway. Regarding net access, I'm going to be out in the bush a bit and the work computers are disabled from editing Wiki, so I won't be able to get on for the whole month. I've decided not to run for co-ord this time around, though, so please don't nominate me. Thank you for the offer, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll be missed. Let me know how the course went when you get back. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, but at least you'll still be around the wiki when you get back! Again, good luck; Milhist is much poorer when you are not around. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ap Bac
Hi mate, I highly appreciate your feedback on the Battle of Ap Bac, and I will work on your suggestions in the coming days. By the time your back on Wikipedia, the article will probably be knocked out of the A-Class assessment queue so if you have more feedbacks, please drop a line or two in the talk page of the article. I will have another go at A-Class.Canpark (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Running for Coordinator 2011 - 2012
I would like to say I am sorry you are not running for another term for Coordinator for the WikiProject Military History. I've decided to run and I feel I am doing well so far. Also, would like to mention I got my second Barnstar yesterday from Sp33dyphil, so I've put the one you gave me and the one he gave me onto my Userpage. Hope to hear and see you again on Wikipedia! All the best with everything in your life. Adamdaley (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
AustralianRupert,

I would like to thank you for giving me your vote in support for being a Coordinator in the WikiProject Military History. I do appreciate it very much. Unfortunately, "we" (you and me) will not be Coordinator's at the same time and we will not be working together. I'm sure we'd still work together in the future on Wikipedia. Don't hesitate to drop me a message on my Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, Adam, I'm sure you will do well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Stuff Already .....
AustralianRupert,

First full day, and another Coordinator (The Bushranger)is questioning why I do the WikiProject templates on the Discussion page the "long" way instead of the "short" way. You've been there for me in the past and I appreciate it. To make this short, you can see it on my Discussion page. Enjoy having more time off Wikipedia and in real life. You deserve it. Adamdaley (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Adam, jumping in as a talkpage stalker. I don't think there was anything wrong with your edit at all, its probably just a case of different ways of achieving the same end. I agree with you that keeping the B class criteria even in GA articles is a good idea and like to do that when I close GAs too, for the very reasons that you mentioned in the other thread. The only thing that I do though is remove the commented out instructions per what The Bushranger was suggesting. This just cuts down on the wasted bytes of keeping them after the B class assessment is complete. For example I just write: B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y, rather than:


 * |B-Class-1=yes
 * |B-Class-2=yes
 * |B-Class-3=yes
 * |B-Class-4=yes
 * |B-Class-5=yes
 * |B-Class-3=yes
 * |B-Class-4=yes
 * |B-Class-5=yes
 * |B-Class-4=yes
 * |B-Class-5=yes
 * |B-Class-5=yes


 * I hope this makes sense. Also I added the banner shell markup which tidies the banners up a bit further. Of course its up to you if you want to do that in future too though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, gents. I usually use the shortened form ("B1=y |B2=n...etc"), mainly because I'm lazy, but it can also save load time on a talk page (slightly). Having said this, there is nothing wrong with the long form either, IMO. In fact, it has some benefits. For example, it may help newer reviewers/editors understand what each criterion means. In this case, I think it is just a matter of personal preference. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what the two people at the time was saying that it would help new editor's understand what WikiProject was what and what each attribute was etc and due to their BOT who also did alot of the work. Adamdaley (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and also, I follow the template not who say's what is right or is the wrong way to do things. As long as the template is there and people can see it.  Adamdaley (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

 * Thanks, Buggie. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies
Hey AustralianRupert, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Dahlen
Thanks for the review. Do you really think that after a copyedit the article may meet the GA criteria? In that case, what should I do? --Frabute (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure as I don't know much about the content side, sorry. It would possibly need some more recent sources, too, but it might be able to make it to GA. My suggestion would be to put it up for a peer review and see what some others think of it. If it gets a good review, you could then nominate it for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you very much ;) --Frabute (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Parachute Brigades
Hi nice to see you back. Yes it was that Hastings thanks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim, no worries. It looks like you have been busy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I eventually got the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic together just waiting for comments. Jim Sweeney (talk)

58/59th Battalion
Howdy. Ok done some digging and got quite a bit:

Palazzo, 2001. The Australian Army;


 * p. 102:
 * Table 4.5. Organisation of the Army, 1928: Major formations and units:
 * 3rd Military District, 15th Infantry Brigade: 57th, 58th, 59th, 60th Bns


 * p. 150:
 * Table 5.6 Organisation of the 3rd Division, September 1939:
 * 15th Infantry Brigade: 57th/60th, 58th, 59th Bns

Kuring, 2004. Redcoats to Cams;


 * p. 111:
 * Table 10: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1934:
 * 3rd Military District - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
 * 58th Battalion (The Essendon Rifles)
 * 59th Battalion (The Coburg-Brunswick Regiment)


 * p.112-113:
 * Table 11: Infantry Battalions of the Austrlaian Military Forces, 1939:
 * 3rd Military District - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
 * 58th Battalion (The Essendon-Coburg-Brunswick Rifles)
 * 59th Battalion (The Hume Regiment)


 * p. 215
 * Table 12: Australian Infantry Battalions and Units on Active Service During World War II:
 * Militia Infantry Battalions
 * 58th/59th Battalion

Perkins, 1994. Regiments: Regiments and Corps of the British Empire and Commonwealth 1758-1993: A Critical Bibliography of their Published Histories;


 * p. 672
 * 58th/59th Battalion:
 * Battalion history: "Militia Battalion at War: The History of 58/59th Australian Infantry Battalion in the Second World War" by Russell Mathews, Halstead press, Sydney, 1961
 * Review of book: "The Bn was an amalgam of the 58th and 59th Bns which, having fought in WWI, survived the inter-war years as Militia units in Victoria. Mobilised in August 1942, it went a year later to Port Moresby. The book has clear interesting coverage of the Wau and Salamaua actions (1943) and the operations in the Ramu Valley and the Finisterre Ranges (1944). After refitting and reinforcement in Australia, the Bn took part in the battle for Bougainville."

Palazzo, 2002. Defenders of Australia: The Third Australian Division;


 * p. 108:
 * "As the crisis in New Guinea deepened, the army decided to reorganise the 3rd Division for deployment to Port Moresby. On 27 August [1942], the Division linked the 37th and 52nd Battalions, to form the 37th/52nd Battalion, and the 58th and 59th Battalions, to form the 58th/59th Battalion."; and
 * "In September, Savige disbanded the 10th Infantry Brigade and redistributed its personnel. Its two battalions joined the remaining brigades. The 24th Battalion went to the 15th Infantry Brigade, with the 37th/52nd Battalion moved to the 4th Infantry Brigade... The Division's infantry organisation now consisted of: 4th Infantry Brigade (22nd, 29th/46th and 37th/52nd Battalions) and 15th Infantry Brigade (24th, 57th/60th and 58th/59th Battalions). When the Army had re-raised the 3rd Division in 1921, there were twelve battalions on its establishment. Now there were just six." Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate, that's a big help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

MOS and numbers and things
Hi AustralianRupert. Just a quick note to thank you for your open-minded attitude towards my preferred formatting of numbers on the GA review for 5th Parachute Brigade. I usually change disputed numerical representations to match the reviewer's preferences, but your cautious wording left rather more leeway, which I think has benefitted the article.

As I understand WP:ORDINAL, it considers three separate cases;
 * 1) numbers from zero to nine, which are normally spelled out in words
 * 2) numbers greater than nine that would require more than two words to spell out; these are normally rendered in numerals
 * 3) numbers that are greater than nine that would only need one or two words to spell out; these can be either spelled out in words or rendered as numerals.

The common confusion seems to stem from people reading this quickly and remembering it as two simple cases; numbers greater than nine always to be rendered one way, and numbers nine or less always to be rendered another way. This isn't what the MOS actually says, though - it quite specifically makes clear that numbers in the third category can be rendered either way. Personally I almost always choose "ten" or "sixty" over "10" or "60" unless it's covered by one of the other situations that the MOS lists; it looks really wrong to me the other way, and it certainly isn't common practice in modern historical works (or even serious journalism) written in British or Commonwealth English. (Not so sure about U.S. English).

The other problem with the simplistic interpretation of the MOS is that it can also encourage text like "10 6 pounder guns" instead of "ten 6 pounder guns", and I think there the problems are doubly clear. (I haven't actually seen this example in text yet, though!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will try to read the MOS a bit more closely. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Whitelaws
a) I can't find any birthdate info on Fred or Norm, nor can I find Norm's date of death. b) How does one locate their military records? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the National Archives might be able to help with the service record: . Also, the AWM might have something. I found this for Fred: . No dates, though, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is some sort of transcript of an interview with Norm: . AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta! [2] & [3] will keep me busy for a while! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I found this relating to John (1921-2010): . I'm not sure, but I think the Wiki article might be incorrect regarding the dates that the younger John joined the military. The interview with Norm and the Age article indicate 1937, rather than the 1939 mentioned in the Wiki article currently. Additionally the point about radar actually probably relates to the father, not the son. I might be wrong, though. I note that on the John Whitelaw (1921-2010) article, PMKeyS is being cited as a source. My personal opinion is that this should not be included. Its not really a verifiable source (except for those with access) and including information from it might actually breach Defence's privacy regulations (not sure). The safest policy, I think, is just to use external, open sources. That is just my opinion, though, and you are welcome to disregard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment
Thanks for working on this article, sorry to have gotten in the way. Didn't realize you were working on it when I barged in.Aleutian06 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate, I've made all my edits now. One question I have relates to the Battle flags section - is the description a direct quote? If so, it should probably be placed in quotation marks and have a citation beside it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

68th NY
Thanks for the GA review. I think I've addressed most of the issues you raised. I left notes at the GA review page. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've passed the article now. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

American Civil War Task Force Barnstar

 * No worries, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but I will pass this time. I'm not working on the Bugle at the moment. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

 * Thanks, Buggie. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Richly deserved! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything, Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I've learned a lot working with you, Dank. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay
Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your improvements to this article look really great. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, Nick. I'm hoping to get a draft completed over the next couple of days. After that, I was thinking of asking for a peer review. I would like to get it to GA if possible over the Christmas break. If you've got any suggestions, please let me know. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can probably add some extra material from the Japanese perspective from Steven Bullard's translation of the Japanese official history and The Path of Infinite Sorrow by Craig Collie and Hajime Marutani. I'll hold off until you finish to avoid edit conflicts though! (these books contain some extra details beyond what's included in Australian works, but don't substantially change any details beyond what was known from the Australian official history - which also used some Japanese sources, from memory). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, that would be great. I'll let you know when I'm done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you advise, if you have a reference, whether a company of the 55th Battalion and a AA-detachment arrived at Milne Bay in early June 1942 at Gili Gili aboard the TSS Islander. Newm30 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate, Brune 2004, p. 266 mentions the 55th and the AA bty, but not the ship unfortunately. I'll keep looking and let you know if I find anything. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Just letting you know that I replaced your markers with proper citations, per WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920).  // Halibutt 02:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Samichon River
Hello again. Just letting you know that I have finally added alt text to the article per your GA review. Its something I always seem to pay off until the review, but was even lazier this time and only did it afterwards! If it is not too much trouble would you please be able to have a look and let me know if you think its up to scratch? Hope you're having some time off this weekend... I just got back from the beach which made a good change. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, mate, had a bit of time off. I have a big week at work next week, so probably should have gone in. Dining-in night last night kicked on a bit, so a bit tired. Anyway, the alt text looks pretty good to me. I made one minor tweak. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, well spotted. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)
Hi I have just seen the link you added for the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) at the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Are you intending to create articles for all the Light Horse Regiments ? It was something I was considering but have nothing other than the AWM material to go off. I did all the Light Horse Brigades some tome ago but never got around to the regiments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim, yes I plan to get to them one day. I have a mini Wikiproject going here: User:AustralianRupert/To do list. For the infantry battalions I have access to a lot of sources through the Defence Library Service, which servicemembers can borrow from, but unfortunately there aren't that many unit histories for the light horse regiments in its catalogue. I have the history of the 12th Light Horse, so will eventually take it to B like I did for the 14th. If you are keen to start the others using the AWM sources, that would be great. I will then see what I can find through DLS and the state library here in Adelaide. It might take me a while to get around to it, though, as at the moment the infantry has my focus. I hope to sort out the engineers and pioneer battalions, too, at some stage. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's some list, however the 1st Light Horse Regiment is now the 1st Royal New South Wales Lancers so strike one.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I just noticed that too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Duntroon graduates
Category:Duntroon graduates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona FAC
I'd appreciate it if you could find time to look over this FAC in the next couple of days and offer your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sure, I'll take a look. I'm a bit stretched at the moment, though. I've overcommitted myself to the GAN backlog drive (I got greedy and nommed a couple of my own, so I need to do at least three reviews myself), and I have a bit of work to do for my real life job tonight. The job of a subaltern never ends it seems. Extra reggie appointments and mess committee duties on top of everything else...I shouldn't complain, though, its the best job in the world. Anyway, I'll see what I can do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added my comments to the review. I'm not sure how much help they will be, though, as I'm a bit out of my depth at FAC (hence why I rarely participate). Good luck with the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WT:MOS
Which see. So far, they're okay with my logic. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dank, it would be good to have a few more opinions so that consensus can be firmly established, but I can see the logic. Just seems inconsistent with what I've seen at ACR for at least the past year, which means maybe we need to adjust a couple of points of aim at that level lest we create work for FAC reviewers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Waverly oclc
I've had a look for it too and can't find it either. Not sure what to do about it. Poor old Preston. Thanks a lot - no idea why he was in my blind spot - yes that's the right oclc number. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, its probably only a minor thing, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba
Yes, thank you, its the correct link. --Rskp (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rupert, what are your concerns over this article? I'm seeing a lot of reverting going on and I'm concerned about criteria 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sturm, I've not read through it recently due to the recent activity, but when I did my minor copy edit, I didn't have too many concerns. There were only a few minor things I think could be improved, but largely these are cosmetic. I'd like to see it pass for GA as I believe it has quality, but unfortunately I don't think that this is possible at the moment as the article isn't stable. That is just my opinion. I am taking a break from the article and I think it would be best if everyone just steps back for a bit and lets things settle. That is what I plan to do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I think this is one of Roslyn's better articles - although the ongoing edit war seems to be a quick fail criteria to me. I also have concerns about the overuse of primary sources (i.e. the AWM War Diary's) which seems to approach OR and could easily be replaced by one of the 10s of books written recently on the subject, and the rather slanted British/Australian perspective adopted. However, I agree that this is often difficult to avoid entirely due to the sources available (and have had similar problems with some of the other articles I have contributed to). You should be aware that I recently initiated an ANI about Roslyn's conduct on another article so pls consider my comments how ever you wish. Anotherclown (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Māori Battalion
Hi there just a note to say I enjoyed reading the Māori Battalion, but had a question over their battle honour Celle. The only one I know of is in Germany and they did not seem to get that far. Is it a typo ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim, good question. I'm not sure where it relates to, sorry. I think it is in Italy, though. . Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello lads. According to Rodger (2003) Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces p. 324 the battle honour "Celle" relates to fighting on 14-15 December 1944 during operations in the 5th (British) Corps and 1st (Canadian) Corps sectors in Italy. Interestingly it seems to only be a Kiwi battle honour, with a bunch of NZ Bns being awarded it, including 28 (Maori) Bn. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I guess it helps to have sources! And you said you were disappointed in that one... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that solves that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now if only I can convince my wife that such things are important... Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, no chance. Mine's the same. I'm on the couch again. She's not impressed that I'm devoting so much time to Milne Bay. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a legit project to me! Anotherclown (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I only hope I do it justice. Any, I'd best retire. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, likewise. Anotherclown (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just come across this article Battle honours of the British and Imperial Armies - it may help in finding links for battle honours if needed, and before you look Celle is not listed.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike that I have been spending so much time in 1914-18, I was looking at the wrong war. Its linked to the Gothic Line. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, Jim. I will go through later and try to link the battle honours on the Maori Battalion page, unless someone beats me to it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay
I have been overhauling the Milne Bay article a bit. I was only intending though to do the Background and Prelude sections, and expand Base Development in the Aftermath. I want to leave the Battle section to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, Hawkeye, no worries at all. I welcome any assistance you want to give. Sorry, it is taking so long to finish off. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is one thing you might be able to clear up: Brune pp 351-353 mentions that the Kittyhawks were ordered to fly off to Port Moresby on 29 August. Gillison p. 614 mentions confusion around a possible order but states that the RAAF were "promptly recalled". One source seems to contradict the other (unless I'm not reading the sources correctly). Do you know which is correct? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On p. 613 Gillison says that 30 Kittyhawks flew back to Port Moresby on 29 August, where they stayed overnight and back again the next morning, losing an aircraft on each trip. Gillison talks on p. 614 about some RAAF ground crew who believed that Milne Bay was being evacuated and set out for Millins Harbour. So there is no contradiction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was having trouble with the arrival of units, but I think I have it all straightened out now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for straightening me out on that. My eyes must have skipped over that page; serves me right for working on it so late at night. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are far from the first or the only one; a reader checking the sources will find the article somewhat clearer. I think you have a done a great job with the battle section, which I always loath having to write. I just want to expand the Base Development in the Aftermath section and I will be done. The article is probably already B class; you can then nominate it for an A class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I really appreciate your input. Please let me know when you are done. I'm thinking of nominating for GAN before ACR, though. I've asked Nick-D if he will take a look also, in case he has anything to add also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Finished now. I think that the introduction is a little brief now. could you added a single paragraph summary of the battle in the middle of it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, please let me know if you think it needs tweaking. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I tweaked it a little to add Allied intelligence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I've nominated it for GAN now. I'm more than happy to share credit with you if it is successful, as you have been a very big part of improving the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is very generous of you. I am happy to respond to any questions related to the sections I was working on. I think you did a great job on the battle section. You may notice that the article now reflects current historiography. Someone reading McCarthy or Keogh is merely informed that a base was established at Milne Bay, and that the 18th Infantry Brigade was sent there; someone reading the article will understand why. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've finished editing the article, so the GAN should be good to go. I'll add some further details on the amazingly poor state of the Japanese command and control of the battle after the review (this topic - and the references on it - is confusing, and I need to get my head around what actually happened). Extra material on the assessments of the battle after it ended by the Allied and Japanese commands would also be in order, but not necessary for GA class. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, congratulations to you both on this article. Given the prominence of this battle, it's great that the article is now of very good quality and the speed of the transformation is amazing. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick, thanks for your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats Rupert, Hawkeye and Nick on improving an important article. Would like to have helped myself but time didn't permit. However I've kept it on my watchlist and notice an anon has just added a para that needs looking at. Appears good faith, and is cited after a fashion, but should be checked for appropriateness or at least tidied up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, thanks I've tried to work it in where it might be appropriate. To be honest, I'm not sure about this addition. I don't know much about the intelligence side, though; it might be okay. Hawkeye will hopefully know more. I do note that at least one of the sources is self published. Might be a problem, specifically as I had been hoping to take it to FAC sometime. Anyway, I suppose it will have to stay for the time being. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems. Next on the list is Kokoda Track campaign and Battle of Buna-Gona to GA status. Could you cast an eye over Battle of Goodenough Island and advise what it needs to get to B class. I am not sure whether enough information can be obtained to make it to GA. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've made a couple of tweaks and added some suggestions on the talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to reviews
I was traveling; I am now going to catch up on various wiki things :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * No worries at all, thanks for the drink! It's a bit early here (6:51 am), but I will save it for lunch! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Messines
Thanks for the copy edit. I try to learn from them but on several of your changes, I can't tell the difference; is it something to do with word spacings?Keith-264 (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, the last one was. There was no space between the citation and the start of the next sentence. Only a minor point. If there is one in particular that you are not sure about, please provide the diff here and I can try to explain it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)
Is this a typo: "They would later be put down due to "costs constraints and quarantine restrictions" and concerns that they might be mistreated if they were left behind."? Specifically "costs" I think it shoud be "cost" but didn't want to change it as its a quote. Thanks mate. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a typo. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok here's what I have:
 * Palazzo (2001) The Australian Army, p. 102:
 * Table 4.5 Organisation of the army, 1928: Major formations and units
 * HQ 2nd Cavalry Brigade - 12th, 15th, 16th Light Horse Regts (2nd Military District)


 * Bou (2010) Light Horse: A History of Australia's Mounted Arm, p. 245
 * Map 6: Distribution of Light Horse Regiments, late 1930s
 * 12th/24th LHR - 2nd District Base (NSW)

Unfortunately Bou doesn't specify which Brigade though. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. Would you mind checking that I got the right bibliographic details for Bou? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep looks ok to me. The copy of Bou I have is published in Port Melbourne, although according to world cat there are two listings: one with New York as the place of publishing and the other with Melbourne, so I guess its really up to you which one you go with. I'm sure they would be little if any difference between the two. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed it to Port Melbourne. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there good job on the 12th, should be a GA soon. When doing the 11th Light Horse Regiment, I come across details of a second mounted charge they were both involved in after Beersheba. Might be of interest. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be something about it on p. 80 in Hollis. I'll try to add something in. Cheers, Jim. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

May Revolution review
Thanks for taking the time to make the review, I'm aware that the article is about a topic that is basically unknown outside of Argentina. You mentioned a tool to check for potencially overlinked pages, which tool is that? It would be helpful when writing and improving an article to use that tool rather than check manually (in a big article, it's easy to forget when a topic has or not been linked before). And when you said "there are no disambig links, ext links all work, images have alt text", did you use another tool to check those ones? Cambalachero (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, the duplicate link tool is a script that you can find here: User:Ucucha/duplinks. The alt text, ext links, disambig check tools can be found here: WP:Featured article tools. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited German submarine U-175, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax, Nova Scotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oliver David Jackson
Cheers, I am a clown. Time for a Christmas eve Gin and Tonic I think! Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gday again. I've added a bit more to the article now, but have probably reached the limit of the sources available. Wondering if you could have a look and let me know if / what is needed to get it up to B class. I think I've filled most of the gaps now though (hopefully). Thanks again for your help. I came accross this character during my research for Long Tan and managed to sidetrack myself for a whole day writing it instead! Anotherclown (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, looks like B class to me now. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for having a look at this. I actually found the ADB entry for his brother this morning (after trying to find the entry for his father which surprisingly doesn't exist), however this actually had more details for his parents and siblings so I've added these as well now to. Bit of luck really. Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I see that the cricket has started well...not. Remember our bet. Innings and 20 and you owe me a beer! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whats cricket? I only watch golf. Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Cheers, Merry Christmas to you too! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Another backlog reduction drive?
Hi there. I was wondering if you had any info on another Milhist backlog reduction drive like the one done back in March. (There is a discussion on the Milhist talk page on B-class backlog and Ed! suggested another assesment drive.) Thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, there is a past discussion here that might provide some information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Strategy/Archive 2. Not sure if this helps or not. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba casualties
Hi, I've moved this discussion from my talk page to the article's talk page and replied there. --Rskp (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd Battalion (Australia)
Howdy, ok this is what I have. Unfortunately Bde assignments are a little hazy (although it looks like it has been part of the 8th Bde on a number of different dates.


 * Festberg (1972), The Lineage of the Australian Army, p. 58:
 * Raised as 16th Infantry (Newcastle Battalion) from parts of 1/4th Australian Infantry Regiment, 1/NSW Scottish Regiment and 1/Australian Rifle Regiment (MO 277/1912)
 * 16th Infantry (Newcastle Regiment) – (MO 493/1913)
 * Parts of 16th and 14th Infantry Regiments joint to form 2nd Battalion 2nd Infantry Regiment, Parts of the 16th and 14th Battalion, Senior Cadets joined to form 3rd Battalion 2nd Infantry Regiment (MO 364/1918)
 * Parts of 2/2nd and 5/2nd Infantry Regiment joined with 2/13 Infantry Regiment to form 2nd Battalion (MO 95/1921)
 * 2nd Battalion and 41st Battalion linked to form 2nd/41st Battalion (AAo 530/1929)
 * 2nd/41st Battalion unlinked. 2nd Battalion linked with 35th Battalion to form 2nd/35th Battalion (AAO 256/1933).
 * 2nd/35th Battalion unlinked, and 2nd Australian Infantry Battalion linked with 41st Australian Infantry Battalion (AIF) to become 41st/2nd Australian Infantry Battalion (AIF) – (2nd December 1943)
 * Disbanded – 17th December 1945
 * Re-raised as 2nd Infantry Battalion (The City of Newcastle Regiment) – (AHQ Directive, April 1948)
 * C Coy (The City of Newcastle Coy) 2 RNSWR (1st July 1960)
 * Palazzo (2001), The Australian Army:
 * Table 3.2 Organisation of the 1st AIF, 1918 (p. 68)
 * 1st Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Bde (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Bns)
 * Table 4.5 Organisation of the army, 1928: major formations and units (p. 102)
 * 2nd Military District, HQ 8th Infantry Bde (2nd, 17th, 18th, 30th Bns)
 * Table 6.4 Order of battle of the CMF field force (my comment: circa 1947)
 * HQ 2nd Division, Infantry, HQs 5th, 7th, 8th Inf Bdes (2nd, 3rd, 9th, 17/18th, 25th, 30th, 31st, 41st, 42nd, 45th Bns) (my comment: not specific which Bn in which Bde)
 * Table 7.14 Redesignation of CMF battalion as pentropic companies (p. 259)
 * 2 RNSWR:
 * 30th Bn (The New South Wales Scottish Regiment) – A Coy (The New South Wales Scottish Coy)
 * 17th/18th Bn (The North Shore Regt) – B Coy (The North Shore Coy)
 * 2nd Bn (The City of Newcastle Regt) – C Coy (The City of Newcastle Coy)
 * 13th Bn (The Macquarie Regt) – D Coy (The Macquarie Coy)
 * 6th Bn (New South Wales Mounted Rifles) – E Coy (The Mounted Rifles Coy) and Spt Coy (The Kuring Gai Coy)
 * Table 8.6 Land Command order of battle, June 1991 (p. 361)
 * 8th Brigade (HQ 8th Bde, 2/17 RNSWR, 41 RNSWR, 7th Fd Regt, 14th Fd Sqn, BASB – to be raised)


 * Kuring (2004), Redcoats to Cams:
 * Table 4: Infantry Battalions of the Commonwealth Military Forces, 1903-12 (p. 39)
 * Ist Infantry Brigade (New South Wales)
 * 1st Australian Infantry Regiment
 * 2nd Australian Infantry Regiment
 * 3rd Australian Infantry Regiment
 * 4th Australian Infantry Regiment
 * Note: “In 1908 the name of the unit of infantry was changed from regiment to battalion, Unit titles were retitled accordingly, eg. 1st Australian Infantry Regiment became 1st Battalion, 1st Australian Infantry Regiment
 * Table 6: Citizen Force Infantry Regiments During the Compulsory Training Scheme as at 1918 (pp. 40-41):
 * 2nd Military District (most of New South Wales) – 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th & 11th Infantry Bdes (my comment – not specific which Bn assigned to which Bde):
 * 13th Infantry, 14th (Hunter River) Infantry, 15th Infantry, 16th Infantry (Newcastle Regiment), 17th Infantry, 18th (North Sydeny) Infantry, 19th (Kuring-Gai) Infantry, 20th (Parramatta) Infantry, 21st (Woollahra) Infantry et al………. (my comment: let me know if you need the full list)
 * Table 7: Infantry Battalions of the 1st AIF (p. 90):
 * 1st Division, 1st Bde:
 * 1st Battalion (New South Wales)
 * 2nd Battalion (New South Wales)
 * 3rd Battalion (New South Wales)
 * 4th Battalion (New South Wales)
 * Table 8: Citizen Force Infantry Battalion Organisation 1918-1921 (As at 1 July 1919) (pp. 107-108):
 * 2nd Military District – 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Infantry Bdes:
 * 1st Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 2nd Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 3rd Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 4th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 13th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 17th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 18th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 19th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 20th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 30th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 33rd Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 34th Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 35th Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 36th Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 45th Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 53rd Infantry Regiment – 2nd and 5th Bns
 * 54th Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 55th Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 56th Infantry Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * 1st Pioneer Regiment – 2nd Bn
 * Sydney University Scouts
 * Table 9: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1924 (pp109-110)
 * 2nd Military District (New South Wales) – 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th Infantry Bdes (my comment: again not specific which Bns attached to which Bde):
 * 1st Bn, 2nd Bn, 3rd Bn, 4th Bn, 13th Bn, 17th Bn, 18th Bn, 19th Bn, 20th Bn, 30th Bn, 33rd Bn, 34th Bn, 35th Bn, 36th Bn, 41st Bn, 45th Bn, 53rd Bn, 54th Bn, 55th Bn, 56th Bn, Sydney University Scouts.
 * Table 10: Infantry Battalion of the Australian Military Forces, 1934 (p. 111) (my comment – again no specific allocation denoted in source):
 * 2nd Military District – 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th Infantry Brigades:
 * Includes (among others): 2nd Battalion (The City of Newcastle Regiment)/35th Battalion (Newcastle’s Own Regiment)
 * Table 11: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1939 (page 112):
 * 2nd Military District (New South Wales) -1st, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th Infantry Brigades (my comment: as above no specific assignment denoted):
 * Includes (among others): 2nd Battalion (The City of Newcastle Regiment)/35th Battalion (Newcastle’s Own Regiment)
 * Table 12: Australian Infantry Battalions and Units on Active Service During War War II (page 215)
 * My comment: does not list 2nd Battalion, 41st Battalion or 41st/2nd Battalion at all in the list of Militia Bns or AIF Bns.
 * Table 13: Infantry Battalions and Units of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, October 1950 (page 227):
 * CMF: Eastern Command (New South Wales): 2nd Infantry Bn (The City of Newcastle Regiment).
 * My comment: no Bde assignments denoted.
 * Table 16: Infantry Battalions and Units of The Royal Australian Infantry Corps, August 1959 (p. 296):
 * CMF: Eastern Command (New South Wales): 2nd Infantry Battalion (The City of Newcastle Regiment).
 * My comment: no Bde assignments denoted.
 * Table 22: Infantry Battalions and Units of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, 1970 (p. 365):
 * The Royal New South Wales Regiment:
 * No 1 Company (Commando)
 * 2nd Battalion
 * 3rd Battalion
 * 4th Battalion
 * 17th Battalion
 * 19th Battalion
 * 41st Battalion
 * My comments: post pentropic, no Bde assignments denoted.
 * Kuring page 436 (circa 2000):
 * 8th Bde: 2/17 RNSWR and 41 RNSWR.
 * My comment: at some stage 2 RNSWR and 17 RNSWR linked but I don't have a ref or date for this.

Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Subpage: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher
AustralianRupert,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

I was wondering if you would be willing to read what I've done so far with "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" on my subpage. It's still unfinished, an opinion would be nice. Thanks for the Barnstar. Adamdaley (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. I will post my suggestions/comments on your talk page. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read what you've said on my talkpage. I know there are little things to do here and there.  But I still haven't finished the "Secret Service" section yet.  At the moment what would you assess the article at in it's current form?  Once 100% finished I know what assessment I would like to have the article assessed at ... But time will tell.  Trying to get it done before February 10, 2012 so it can be "On This Day".  Adamdaley (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, sorry I somehow missed this comment before. In its current form, I believe that the article would probably be C-class, but I am by no means an expert on the topic. Good luck with the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * AustralianRupert, I've made the changes you suggested and created another draft of the article on a subpage. Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, I have a little more to do in the Secret Service then onto "Capture and Later" will be re-written somehow with similar information. Suggested assessment in it's current form? Adamdaley (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, I believe that it would probably still be C-class because the last three paragraphs in the "Capture and later" section are uncited. Otherwise, I think it would probably be B-class. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AustralianRupert... I've completed the rewrite of Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher on this subpage: User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 1 ... Would like it to be re-assessed, against the B Class. Then possibly see if it would make GAN assessment and also "Did You Know" assessment. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, I've put some comments on your talk page as it seems better to put the suggestions for the article there. I hope this is okay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All suggestions completed. I appreciate your help and knowledge to make an ordinary article to become a better article.  Adamdaley (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Happy to help. Regarding moving the article to the articlespace, as it already currently exists in article space, I'm not sure that it can be "moved", but rather "copy and pasted". If doing so, I suggest using an edit summary such as: "expanding article, copying text from User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 1" or something similar. I'm not quite sure of my advice here, though, so it might pay to ask one of the Milhist admins - Nick-D, Dank, etc. (sorry gents for dobbing you in! ;-) ) as they will more than likely know the best way to add the content and preserve the history of your work. In relation to nominating for GAN and DYK: both have quite formal processes which are probably best started by yourself. To nominate for GAN, the instructions can be found here: WP:GAN, while DYKs can be nominated here: Template talk:Did you know. I believe these days, that there is a requirement to review somone else's submission to DYK before yours can progress. I hope this helps. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now on the main article Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher. Assessed as "B class".  Would you be willing to put it in for GAN and "Did You Know" assessments please?  They are too confusing for me and doesn't appear that I am able to proceed with these two assessments myself.  Adamdaley (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Hello there. Sadly, the article on the Battle of Radzymin failed at A-class assessment due to procedural reasons. All the issues were fixed but only two people actually voted for it. Since you helped to improve the article in the past, could I interest you in the new assessment? Thanks for any help.  // Halibutt 12:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to take a look over the next couple of days. To be honest, I'm stretched a bit thin on Wiki at the moment. In my attempt to help out the project by reviewing everything up at Milhist ACR over December, I missed quite a few issues which were later picked up by others in subsequent reviews. As such, I am thinking now that over January I will only pick two or three articles to review and try to focus on quality over quantity. I'm also trying to make the most of my Christmas leave to write a few articles, so I am trying to prioritise my time. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I included all your suggestions at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920). As User:Fifelfoo who voted in the previous assessment seems to be inactive (on wiki-strike, more precisely) and User:Adamdaley who helped with copyedit of that article is "uncomfortable with voting anywhere above B-class", do you have any suggestions whom could I poke to take a look at the article and possibly vote for it? I wouldn't want the second assessment round to fail due to inactivity. Thanks again and greetings from the real down-under (that is Poland; look beneath your feet, I'm right there :) ).  // Halibutt 13:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added my support as you've addressed my comments. I'm sorry to hear that about Fifelfoo as I have great respect for his abilities as a reviewer. Hopefully the situation will be resolved amicably and we'll see him back. Anyway, back to your question. You might consider asking some of the ACR regulars such as Nick-D, Ian Rose or Dank to take a look. Also Nikkimaria has started doing some A-class reviews and has a lot of FA experience. I believe that Cambalachero is an image/copyright reviewer and they might take a look at your images if you ask, which could be of great benefit if you are thinking of taking this to FA as you will want your images to be squared away to pass there. I hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd Battalion
Excellent work as usual with this article - it's really impressive. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. This was one of the more difficult ones for me as I didn't have access to the battalion history. I've ordered that book, but it won't arrive until after I go back to work in mid-Jan, so I thought I would do the majority of the writing now and then when that book arrives, go back and adjust where necessary. I will take it to GAN eventually and maybe ACR (maybe after Milne Bay, which I hope to nom soon). I have a goal to get one of the infantry battalions successfully through FAC one day and this might be the one. Sentimentally, though, I'd like to to be either the 2/3rd (my grandfather's battalion - but it needs more work), or the 2/48th as they have the distinction of being the most decorated Australian infantry battalion of the Second World War. It's all part of my own Unofficial Wikiproject. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

full stop
I know. The one being generated by the template is supposed to follow the (year/date), which is missing; add that and the "v." will need to be restored. Alarbus (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've asked Buggie111, who is the main contributor to the article, to look into the year of the source. Hopefully they will be able to find it and add it in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They weren't able to find it. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Elands River (1900), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maxim and Transvaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You have made two personal attacks on me here, and after I apologised, here.

Meanwhile I have kept my word and held off any further editing back to Anzac - waiting for consensus. But there has been no substantive additions to the consensus reached regarding reverting back to Anzac on the basis of Ian Rose since your outbursts.

So how long was I supposed to wait? --Rskp (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely sorry that you were offended by my comments, Rskp. It was not my intention. I was trying to explain to you that I was in agreeance with you in regards to this aspect of the content dispute (the "ANZAC Mounted Division" or "Anzac Mounted Division" issue), but not in regards to the way you've gone about it. I was obviously not effective in explaining that to you in a manner that you find acceptable. That being said, I dispute your characterisation of my post as being a personal attack, which is defined here: WP:NPA, particularly as I was actually trying to help you and the others resolve the situation. Nevertheless, as I am unsure how to explain my opinion to you without offending you, I will not be interacting with you again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rskp, I've checked those diffs above and see no evidence of personal attacks or outbursts, only straightforward observations and suggestions. I hope you'll take that on board but, if you wish to pursue it, please do so elsewhere as I don't think Rupert needs it to continue on his talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. But after your earlier accusations your tone in these two posts felt to me like a personal attack. Consider the matter dropped by me.--Rskp (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Featured_article_candidates/1st_Provisional_Marine_Brigade/archive2
Did Ed! answer your two questions? No rush. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, he has. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Request
May I move your suggestion over to Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2. So all the suggestions are in one place? PS thank you very very much for all the help.Moxy (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes that's fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

 * Thanks, Buggie. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Colonial forces of Australia
What you've done to this article so far is looking really good. This has long been a low quality wall-of-text, and your edits are really helping to improve it. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. I'd like to get it to B class, but I don't think I have the sources unfortunately; nor the time at the moment. Pretty busy with work now that stand-down is over. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

light Horse Regiments
Hi have you see this it suggests there were 21 regiments in the Great War. While we only have 15 created and only details on the 15 at the AWM. Note the battle honours are only theatre honours. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Jim, interesting find. My understanding is that only 15 light horse regiment saw active service during World War I. After the war, when Australia's military was re-organised, a number of light horse regiments were raised as part of the Citizens Forces (today's Australian Army Reserve, which is similar to the Territorials). Some of these light horse regiments were raised to perpetuate AIF light horse regiments which had served overseas, while others had no lineage. In 1936, however, the decision was made to award four battle honours – "Anzac, Gallipoli 1915, Egypt 1915-17 and Palestine 1917-18" to some of these units. There is some info here: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be something like that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of British Army regiments that served in Australia between 1810 and 1870, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cape York and Melville Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Working late
Your working late is it insomnia or have your moved continents? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Jim. Yeah, insomnia. Haven't been able to sleep well for the last few years; I am, shall we say, a bit damaged (sleep brings bad dreams of things going bang when they shouldn't). How my wife puts up with me, I will never know, but anyway...I should say, though, that my latest Wiki project is also a bit of a nightmare: Colonial forces of Australia. It was largely uncited when I got to it, so I've been trying to find sources and images. There's a lot of contradictory information out there, though, so I'm struggling a bit. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Allan Boase
Thanks for tidying up this article and putting it forward for B-class assessment (which I've been meaning to do myself, just waiting until the last lot I put forward got assessed). You have done pass overs on a few articles I've worked on now, I do try and note what you've done (which are usually corrections of some kind!) so I don't make the same mistakes. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Keep up the work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher ..... GAN Review
AustralianRupert,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

I've had the above article reviewed for "GAN" assessment. I feel I am re-writing the article and taking out vital information since it's been assessed as "B class". I would like a second opinion, for a copy of my original article it's on User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 1. Further more I feel I am making edits that are going to make the article a lower assessment as it is currently assessed at ("B class"). It would be really appreciated if you give feedback on the article so it can be archived with the GAN review page. Adamdaley (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, sorry I got busy at work and haven't been on for a bit. Just doing a quick drive by tonight. I will try to take a good look at the review on Thursday. I believe that Sp33dyphil has considerable experience, and I'm sure that they are just trying to give a thorough review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, as per your request and as promised above, I've added a comment to the GA review now. I've also made some copy edits to the article based on the review. Please take a look and adjust as you feel necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

 * Thanks, Laura, I hope you have a great Australia Day, too! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher Article
AustralianRupert,

Article: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.

I would like to thank you for going over and fixing any further things that were wrong or incorrect in the article. I am please with what you have done. I was on Wikipedia when you were doing your changes to the article, so I left you alone to change the article, which I knew was in good hands. I appreciate what changes, corrections and additional wording, you have done to the article. Adamdaley (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Adam, happy to help. I hope you get a good outcome for all your hard work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to add to the talkpage the following: Maintained|User:Adamdaley|Adamdaley template? Adamdaley (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, I see no issues with you adding that. I've seen it used on other articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Adam. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Colonial forces of Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Victoria and Capitation


 * Allan Boase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Commodore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Military historian of the Year (Gold)
Very well done mate,  Roger Davies  talk 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Roger, and all those who saw me worthy. I have to say I'm quite surprised with the result, but am humbled by the vote of thanks. We had many great contributors in 2011, and there were many who were nominated who I personally feel deserve the award just as much, if not more. Of course, someone will have to break the bad news to my wife, who will be most concerned by the encouraging effect that this will have on me to continue on Wiki throughout 2012. She was hoping that it might be a hobby I give up this year. Sorry, dear... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh heh, don't worry, my wife feels exactly the same ambivalence towards to this sort of thing... ;-) Anyway, well done Rupert leading a clean sweep for the Australians! You've fully earned the award not simply for your general coord work and article writing but for the fact that by reviewing with such dedication you're improving dozens of articles written by others and therefore deserve some credit for each of those too. You'll have to tell your better half that it's part of your patriotic duty to keep going! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very well deserved - congratulations. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh to be a college student with no wife. Your poor old men. ;-) Congratulations Rupert, you're a great editor and this was a perfect choice by the project. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrat's! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well deserved; congratulations Rupert! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  09:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more well done. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to go! Well deserved MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Zawed (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Review requests
I very much appreciate your reviews. Would you have the chance to look at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski and WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bautzen (1945)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry I'm taking a bit of a break from reviewing for a bit while I focus on improving a couple of my own articles. I might be able to take a look at either Koniecpolski or Bautzen on Sunday night, though, (it's Friday here in Adelaide now). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You! December 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

 * Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Fisher Article: GAN Again.
AustralianRupert,

I've added the Vilyam Fisher article to GAN again due to addition information and referenced them. Would you be able to assess it as GAN? Adamdaley (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam, I'm not really in a position to take on a GA review at the moment. I'm struggling to find much time for Wiki at the moment. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you free ?
Hi if your free could you run an eye over the British infantry brigades of the First World War. I'm looking to take it forward to FL in the future. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Jim, I've given it a quick copy edit. It looks quite good. One thing I wasn't sure of, though, was the bold part in the lead. I don't think it is quite right the way it is, but I couldn't really think of a solution. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I have taken the looks a bit better. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me
Sorry about all of that confusion. Am still learning the ropes around here. Thank you for your input and I left comments on the page in regard to your suggestions. Again, thank you. Kb butler (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of the Avre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avre River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Pinney
Thanks for the comments - I think I've fixed them all. I'm still not 100% clear on the dashes issue, however; do these changes all look correct?

Thanks again for the feedback! Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes they look good. I made one adjustment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Book:Arkansas Confederate Units.
Rupert

Would you mind assessing 4th Regiment, Arkansas State Troops and 5th Regiment, Arkansas State Troops against B class criteria for me? I have added them to the Book Book:Arkansas Confederate Units, but they are still listed as Stubs. Unfortunately many of the assessments were done when the articles were first posted and they need to be updated. Thanks. Aleutian06 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, mate. I've made a couple of tweaks and updated the assessments on those articles. I think the 5th Regiment article is close to B class, but I feel that it might lack for coverage slightly. Given that the unit had a very brief history, I think that if you were to convert the large block quote in to prose/your own words, it would probably meet the B2 criteria. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sir. Aleutian06 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Goodenough Island
Since you are looking at it anyway, perhaps you could give this article a Good Article review? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I can do that. I'm heading out field tomorrow for a week, but I will try to get the review done tonight. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added my review now. I will probably be online for another two hours so if you can respond before then I can finish up the review, otherwise it will have to wait until next Saturday when I get back. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work, I've listed it as a GA now. Well done. I'd better finish up for the night. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

VERY URGENT
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.24.15 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unknown callsign, say again your last. Over." AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reg Saunders
Hi mate, was looking through some books, particularly on Korea, and it seemed to me this could be expanded a bit and put up for GA. Since I think you did most of the work here early on, did you want to join me in that endeavour once I've added what I can find? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday Ian. Pretty sure Rupert is out bush out the moment but he should be back in a few days. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for the sitrep, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, gents, I'm back now. Ian: yes, I'd like to work with you on that article. It's been a while since I did anything on it, and I fear it might not be an example of my best work, so it might need a bit of work to get it up to scratch; its definately a worthy subject for our time, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, I've added some thoughts on expasion/improvements on the article's talk page. Please feel free to let me know what else you think needs work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution
I have nominated the article May Revolution for FAC at Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4. As you made a review of the article in the past, it would be useful if you could check it again, as it is an obscure topic outside of Argentina and previous nominatons did not atract enough reviewers. All comments are welcome. Cambalachero (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, if I get some time, I will try to take a look some time over the next few days. I only occassionally review at FAC, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing

 * No worries, thanks for the drink. I can't say I've ever tried that one before. Good luck with taking the article further; hopefully the ACR will make the next FAC easier. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope so. To be safe I'll ask Malleus to go over it after my current nom finishes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard (23)
Fantastic work ... I can't say that at FAC because it's not up to me to judge, but I can say it here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dank, I appreciate the feedback. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Slow but sure?
Hi I noticed while copy editing the U-30 article that in 13 edits, you have changed it from 21,245 to 22,759k, a total of 1,514 bytes, all on 250710. One summary reads: "+ missing full stop". I'm curious as to why you use this method.

Regards

RASAM (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I usually use that method when I am copyediting as part of a review as it enables me to provide reasons behind each of my edits. Also, it means that if there is an edit conflict, the amount of work that is lost is minimal. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Abdul Waheed Kakar
AustralianRupert,

Article: Abdul Waheed Kakar.

I've been going through and assessing the incomplete assessed articles for B class for WikiProject Military History. I pick random articles which I feel I can assess and reasonably assess. I decided to do Abdul Waheed Kakar and for some unknown reason thought I'd do a search to see anything comes up and one of the first articles was Defenders of Pakistan. I notice in the first paragraph "Gen Abdul Wahid Kakar". Is this the same person with a different spelling of his middle name? Adamdaley (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, yes it seems likely but I can't be sure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :D

 * Thanks. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

 * Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars
Hello AustralianRupert, I noticed you are good with colonial articles. I too mainly deal with Australian military history more or less centered on the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), but I recently created the article Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars, if you could help in anyway to it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I don't actually have much knowledge of this topic and all the sources I used for Colonial forces of Australia have gone back to the library, unfortunately. Nevertheless, I took a quick look at the article. Good work so far. I've added some comments/suggestions to the talk page. From what I can see, the main issue is sourcing (although the prose could also possibly be made a little clearer in places also, but that can probably be fixed once you've got the referencing sorted). So the main question is, from where did you get the information to write the article? This should be included using inline citations per Citing sources, this is done so that readers can verify the information and also so that reviewers can make sure that it is accurate and the words are original (i.e. not copied from elsewhere). I find it best to add these references at the same time as writing, otherwise you are playing catch up to add them later; I have such a bad memory that I can't always remember where I read things, so I have to add the citations from the start. Please let me know how you get on with my suggestions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks I will.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Officers' Commission Certificate
Hi AustralianRupert. My name is Alex Tonkin and I am currently working on a presentation called 'The Crown in Australian Society' to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. It includes a large section on the Crown's role in the Australian Defence Force. I have been searching for a commissioning certificate for an Australian officer for a long time and have noticed that you have edited the RAN page indicating that the commissions are issued in the Queen's name and also noticed that you graduated from Duntroon. I was wondering whether you would be able to do me a massive favour and send me a high quality scanned photo of your commissioning certificate? Perhaps, if you're interested, you might even include it on the article []. There is an example of a Canadian commissioning certificate and I think it would be great for an Australian one as well. I would be extremely grateful and would of course give you full credit, I would also blur your name as well. If you are interested my email is alextonkin@yahoo.com.au

Thank you very much I would appreciate it a lot,

Cheers from Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.157.93 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Alex, I'm sorry but I will have to disappoint you. I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, I'm not actually sure that I would be allow to upload a photograph of my commissioning certificate, as my understanding is that it attracts Crown copyright. And secondly, while I'm sure that you are more than likely an upstanding citizen and while I appreciate your offer to blur my name, it is probably not prudent of me to send such information (there are a number of Defence policies surrounding serving members and social media that I have to be careful of). I have a suggestion, though. Have you contacted the Defence Media Line? They might be able to help get you in touch with someone that could possibly release an image of a commissioning certificate. Defence has helped Wikipedia in the past with obtaining permission for photographs (for example the photograph at Ben Roberts-Smith). Their phone number can be found here: or you can email your request here: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Hellzapoppin Ridge and Hill 600A
Gday. I stumbled accross this article not realising you had written it - you're well outside your lane (although you've recently done a few fairly off-topic articles recently like Elands River, Colonial forces etc)! Quite an interesting and tidy little article. I guess I should not be surprised given some of the work you have done on the Bougainville campaign articles though. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. Yes, I felt like writing something different and I wanted to get rid of a redlink from the Bougainville campaign box (a couple to go in that regard). It might be a bit rough as I wrote it in a couple of hours yesterday, so it might need a few tweaks. My biggest problem is that I don't have many sources for it. Hawkeye is going to add some next week. It would be great if I could get a good quality battle image, too, but so far I've only got the maps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your work on these articles on the Bougainville Campaign is, as always, excellent. Are you planning on creating an article on the Japanese counter-attack? (which I'm amazed still doesn't exist; it's not like there were many corps-level battles in the Pacific War!). Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick. Thanks, yes I have plans for that one eventually unless someone beats me to it. I'd like to build up my sources before tackling it, though. I'm hoping to eventually get all of the Bougainville Campaign articles up to at least B class standard. Are you keen to work on any of them? Maybe the counterattack article might be of interest to yourself? I'd be more than happy to let you take it if you want it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I think that I will have a go at the counterattack article (to B class standard, at least). I'm meant to be working on the World War II or Battle of Tarakan (1945) articles, but the idea of starting an entirely new article seems more attractive at the moment! I'll draft the article at User:Nick-D/Drafts11, and any contributions would - of course - be very welcome. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great, Nick, I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Hellzapoppin Ridge and Hill 600A, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mortar and Buin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre
Greetings Rupert, this is a notice to let you know that 1740 Batavia massacre, which you have previously reviewed or copyedited, has been nominated at FAC. Should you be willing to review the article, feedback is welcome at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group Seven
Thanks for reviewing this article - appreciate it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Wikichevrons

 * Thanks, Dan. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Wareo
Hi, hope you are well. I was just wondering whether you could cast your eyes and copy edit skills over the Battle of Wareo. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. Newm30 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

10th Light Horse Regiment photos
If you're interested, the AWM has a collection of fascinating photos of this regiment in 1943 in its database. I've uploaded a photo of the winner of the regiment's "best turned out light horseman" competition - I imagine that it's the best example of the final evolution of the Australian Army's light horse uniform and equipment. I understand your reluctance to upload photos by the way - the whole thing seems rather silly given that the AWM doesn't claim copyright over the photos it owns which are more than 50 years old and presumably couldn't care less if they were hosted on an American server. Someone at Wikimedia Australia proposed the development of an Australian version of Wikicommons a while ago, but I don't think that it's gone anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. That's a good addition to the article, especially as it shows horses being used so late (i.e. in the 1940s), something which I expect most Australians wouldn't expect. Regarding the image issue, I guess have a number of concerns: (1) a lot of the work that has been done (mainly by other editors) around the Korean War (Anotherclown's work for example) is going to be diminished; (2) is common sense going to be applied to tagging and deleting, or is it just going to be done blindly? (This approach will no doubt see a lot of images deleted that are perfectly valid, even under the URAA policy). Moving beyond that, when I've asked this before, no one bothers to explain it as if it doesn't matter, but how is it meant to practically work? Is the US government going to take Wikipedia to court because it is displaying Australian War Memorial images that the donor themselves is freely providing? I doubt it. And if they did, who do they think Wikipedia should be paying for using those images? Additionally, if I was to buy images from 1946-55 off the AWM as an agent of Wikipedia, would that be acceptable (i.e. could I ask Wiki for a grant to buy images from the AWM?), or would they also get deleted? Sorry, the whole thing is just getting my morale down. Seems like another example of process over quality and black letter law over common sense. It's not like these are copyright violations - the donor wants us to use them - but yet our own policies are not flexible enough to allow us to do so. I know that editors are only trying to do what they think is right, but it seems like a crazy situation and basically all it will encourage is either a lot of articles with no images at all, or the editors that normally work in that area deciding not to write the articles at all and just moving on. Sorry, I sort of held down the send button on that one didn't I? That's probably all I should say. I will self administer an upper cut and shall impose a topic ban on myself surrounding the whole thing. Over. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely: the AWM doesn't consider these images as being under copyright, and none of them will have ever been licensed in the US given that they're Australian Government images, so there's no effective problem. We've been using them for years without any kind of complaint from the Memorial, which is actually fairly Wikipedia-friendly. I find copyright paranoia like this rather tiresome, and thought that it was a thing of the past. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work on the Hornet article, BTW. I made a couple of tweaks. I was going to assess it, but Hawkeye beat me to it. The images look great, BTW. When I was young I always wanted to be a Hornet pilot, but in high school I realised that it probably wasn't a viable option (very competitive), so I went with the Rising Sun instead. I don't regret that decision ever but its still hard not to envy (just a little) those that get to fly fast jets. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those improvements. A friend of mine applied to be a Hornet pilot, but flunked out at the stage where he had to play a complex video game while simultaneously answering difficult math questions! Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Kokenhausen
VM has expanded the article. I wonder if we should reinstate it as a B-class now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Piotrus, I missed this comment before. I'm not sure, to be honest. The coverage still seems wanting, although I guess it depends upon how much detail the sources provide. For instance, the Battle section seems quite light and the Aftermath section doesn't provide much of an overview as to what happened after the battle. This section could probably mention subsequent actions by the main belligerents in order to provide some context as to how the battle fitted into the wider conflict that it took place in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to Colonial forces of Australia
Howdy, not sure if you saw this. I wasn't sure if the edit is correct as I don't have my books with me at the moment - can you pls check? Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, cheers yes I saw it. I have a feeling that "West Australian Volunteers" is the proper name, but I have sent all the books back to the library, so I can't check it unfortunately. A Google Books didn't really seem to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No dramas, I'll check Kuring when I get home tomorrow night. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Wareo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

36th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
Would you mind assessing 36th Arkansas Infantry Regiment against the Class B checklist? ThanksAleutian06 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day. I've assessed it as B class, but I'd be obliged if you could add a citation to the place I've marked with a "citation needed" tag. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Thank you Sir! Aleutian06 (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
Are you interested in helping to try and get these down to a managable level? I'm going to try and do 5 a day, obviously at that rate it will take about ten years, however if other people help it might only take 5 years! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I will try to help. I usually do a few most days already, though. A few years ago, I did about 500 in a month, then gave up. I once had all of the articles starting with 1 assessed...10 years seems about right, then. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Scott
Just a note to let you know that Charles Scott (governor), an article you reviewed for MILHIST A-class status, has now been nominated for FA status. Your comments on this nomination would be appreciated. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the nom. I will try to stop by some time if I get a chance. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
You're a good man to have as backup/followup! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, good work with fixing those errors in the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

5th Arkansas Infantry Regiment and 10th Arkansas Infantry Regiments
When you have time to access 5th Arkansas Infantry Regiment and 10th Arkansas Infantry Regiments for Class B status I would be very grateful. Thanks.Aleutian06 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've assessed them now. One just needs a couple more citations (where I marked) and it would be B class, IMO. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sir, I will notify you when I have added the citations. Aleutian06 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the requested citations to 5th Arkansas Infantry Regiment. Thanks Aleutian06 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've re-assessed it now. If you are wanting to take it further, the lead will probably need to be expanded a bit more. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am trying to bring all the articles in the Book talk:Arkansas Confederate Infantry Units up to B class before I try to take one further than that. I appreciate your support. Aleutian06 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. It looks like you've got enough to keep you going for a while! ;-) Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Cheers, Sturm. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

RAAF squadrons
Your work on updating those articles on RAAF squadrons and improving them to B class is really great. I've been - very slowly - doing the same over the last 18 months or so, and tracking progress at User:Nick-D/RAAF sqns. I should really get around to doing some more! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick, I will keep plugging away. I have Eather's book for at least another three weeks or so before it has to go back to the library. I've been trying to branch out from my Australian infantry battalions niche recently to keep myself interested. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Wareo
If you don't mind, there are still a few things I would like to add to the Battle of Wareo article (which is very, vewry good), related to logistics. Unfortunately, I have to go up to Queensland for the weekend, and won't be able to start until next week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great, Hawkeye, the logistics side isn't my strong suit. Whenever you get to it will be fine. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

101st Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment
AustralianRupert,

Article: 101st Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment.

I've made slight improvements to the above article. I was wondering if you could take a look at it even though it is a "Stub". It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Resubmit – Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher – A-class Review
AustralianRupert,

I would like to resubmit Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher for A-class review a second time because I've fixed the references and added more information. The old A-class review was still there when I tried to add it for review for A-class and didn't know what to do. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, I have moved the old review and started the new one for you. It has been transcluded at WP:MHACR and can be viewed at: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher. Just a word of warning, though, currently the process at ACR can be quite lengthy due to a backlog and a shortage of reviewers, so unfortunately your article may not be reviewed for a little while. If you are keen, please consider reviewing one of the other articles that are currently listed also, as this will help with the backlog. Good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Reg
G'day mate, congrats on our new A-Class article! I think we should strike at FAC while the iron is hot, just let me check w. my fellow delegates that there's no issue because I still have a FAC of my own running (Colin Hannah) -- I doubt there'll be a prob because Reg is a joint nom, and in any case Hannah has four supports and should be ready to close... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no concerns from my FAC cohorts so let me know if there's anything else you think we should do with the article before we nominate -- nothing stands out for me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, nothing really stands out for me, either, so I think it's good to go. I'm not really sure of the nom process at FAC, would you mind doing the honours? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I can remember how to do it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if I co-nommed the Battle of Milne Bay? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, that's fine by me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, that'd be brill -- all three of us would each have two active FACs at the same time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski
Thank you for your review. I think I've addressed all the issues you've raised. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

15th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Josey's)
Could you please assess 15th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Josey's) against the Class B check list when you have a minute? Thanks! Aleutian06 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir! Aleutian06 (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Cite error tool
Hi mate. Has something happened to the Cite error tool or is my memory that bad? I can't seem to find it anymore. Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, mate, I haven't been able to find it for months. I have been wondering the same (you know how bad my memory is from the "Comp B unpleasantness", so I thought it was just that). How's Long Tan and your brief "Summer of George" going, anyway? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I used it yesterday and now I can't find it! The article is getting there, its now a motivation thing though. If I knuckle down I should get a draft done in a few weeks (given I only work on it on the weekends), but it is still too long though. When its done I'm going to ask a few favours of some of the more reasonable Australian editors to go through it with a fine tooth comb before I nom it for GA. Also I'm desperately short of images and given its size it is starting to look like a wall of text. Might need to see if anyone is prepared to assist there too. Fending for my self at the moment... I haven't resorted to junk food or rat packs though (like some of my soldiers) so I must be doing ok. Someone needs to wash up soon though... any volunteers? Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Put an OPDEM through to 1 Bottlewasher Coy? Callsign "Geeves". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlucky - they were disbanded as a result of recent budget cuts... Had to do it myself. Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I offered to hand in my long sleeve tunic and trousers and wear an Auscam short sleeve shirt and shorts if they could stay on the orbat. I was told that they would be kept on, but they wouldn't be getting their new self propelled sinks. They would have to use bicycles instead. Apparently the government changed their mind; the money is needed elsewhere. Probably the new mess dress. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If only that were true but we have to buy that ourselves. Actually that money was needed for government programs which are clearly more important than our national security. How else could they afford to bribe people to support the carbon tax? Also don't forget the hundreds of school halls that we didn't need but got anyway. So much for the Hardened and Networked Army I guess. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack to that. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I worked it out - I needed to purge my "cache" (CTRL + F5)... I didn't know I had any "cache" but there you go! Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

1 Parachute Battalion
AustralianRupert,

Article: 1 Parachute Battalion.

Would you be willing to have a look and possibly an assessment for the above article? I've assessed it against B-class. Then I did the editing and have improved the Infobox and article. Would be appreciated when you have time. Adamdaley (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, I've had a quick look at the article and to be honest the current assessment (start class with B1 and B2 not met) seems accurate to me. There are almost no citations and the article focuses too much upon details that exist on the periphery of the topic. That's just my opinion, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Milne Bay
I notice in the FAC that there was discussion over the lasting effects of Milne Bay, I went looking on Trove about Milne bay and it return a lot of newspaper articles, images and books. I really dont know if there isnt anything that will be able to add to the FAC but I thought I let you know about these resources. Gnangarra 03:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will have a look through those and see if anything else can be worked in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

organic artillery support for Australian divisions in the Pacific Theatre in the Second World War
Hello AustralianRupert, wondering if you have any comments on this topic. Briefly, I've noted that British/Canadian/Indian infantry divisions during the latter part of the Second World War in Europe had a "standard" divisional artillery allocation of three 25-pounder field regiments. This "rule" doesn't seem to have been standard in Burma, where infantry divisions had mixed field and mountain regiments or only two field regiments. Was this the case as well for Australian divisions during Pacific operations? The Australian official history noted one orbat for the 7th Division that showed three field regiments, but a brief work I have on "Commonwealth Divisions" indicates that less than three field regiments was also found in the Australian forces in the Pacific. As my sources on this are limited, I'd appreciate any information or thoughts you may have here. Thanks and Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday WB. Rupert has been away for the last week on work and I'm not sure when he gets back so it might be a day or two before he replies (fairly sure the exercise ends sometime this weekend then he has some family commitments). BTW the Australian Army was reorganised in 1943 for operations in the Pacific with the establishment of a number of Jungle divisions which were organised on reduced manpower and fewer heavy weapons. Initially the typical ORBAT of a Jungle division included just one Field Regiment, although in later campaigns it became evident that additional indirect fire support was necessary and some reverted to the more standard allocation of three Field Regiments. The wiki article on Jungle divisions has a summary which might be helpful. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of that article. It explains what both sources I looked at had to say.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering that. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to Anotherclown's excellent post, the field regiments in the jungle divisions were equipped with a mix of standard 25 pounders and Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short guns. The mix was initially set at two batteries of standard guns and one of 'short' guns. I'm not sure if this was maintained until the end of the war, however - the 9th Division wanted its artillery units to have a full complement of standard guns as well as some 'short' guns to be used when needed (if anyone knows more about this topic I'd love to see it - I think that the article on the short guns needs another para or so on how they were used in action to reach FA class, but I've never been able to find sources for this!). It's worth noting that the 'tank attack' (anti-tank) regiments which were sometimes attached to the jungle divisions were equipped with both heavy mortars and anti-tank guns. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nick . . . fascinating information. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Poelcappelle
Thanks for looking over the Poelcappelle page. The sources for it (and 1st Passchendaele) are so sparse I've been gleaning little bits here and there. Fortunately the AOH and NZOH have some detail but the German and French side is pretty anonymous.Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Keith. Happy to help where I can. Good work in getting it up to B class. If you are wanting to take it higher, it would stand a decent chance, IMO, but I'm not an expert on World War I. You might consider putting the article up for WP:Peer Review, where you might be able to attract more attention to it. A couple of minor suggestions that I have are:
 * This probably needs a citation if you want to take the article to GA or higher: "Duck-board tracks extended to a mile short of the front line, beyond which was a taped row of stakes (illuminated with lamps at night) but pack animals trampled many of the tracks into the mud";
 * (very minor point), but it appears that in some places the wrong type of dash is used (e.g. currently an emdash is being used where an endash should probably be used);
 * the formatting of the Notes section is a little inconsistent. For example compare note 1 and 5; and compare # 5 with 13, etc.
 * where you have distances, for instance "25—40 yards", it might be best to add a conversion. For instance, " 25 - 40 yd " which will produce this: "25 - 40 yd";
 * In terms of German and French sources: have you checked the French and German Wikipedia articles? If they exist, there might be a couple of sources that you could glean; I think that there are a couple of German speakers in the Military History project (User:MisterBee1966 for instance), who might be able to help with translation if need be;
 * in the References, this: "German Divisions of WW1, by Intelligence Section, AEF HQ, 1919, Lists 9 German Divisions (the 4th Bavarian Division, 15th Division, 16th Division, 18th Division, 119th Division, 195th Division, 227th Division, 233rd Division and 240th Division) as taking part in the battle.", would probably be better presented in a footnote.
 * Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dash it all! I've looked at the different dashes and the wiki explanation but I find that the explanations seem to suit computer aficionados but not me, I need a description; same goes for the footnote, I read how to do it, tried the method and it didn't work. I'll have another go. Thanks for the yards-metres converter, hitherto I've been relying on other people to put them in. I'll have a look at the other wikis too. The trouble with the sources that do exist is that the English ones seem to be one of the sources of the mud, blood and poetry school except for Terraine and Sheldon, they don't dwell on the management choices made and the information they had. Going by Ludendorff, Rupprecht and Kuhl Poelcappelle and 1st Passchendaele were highly damaging to them too. I fear that I might have to do it myself at the PRO. Anyway, thanks very much.Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, the way I try to remember the dash rule is that you use emdashes for where you might otherwise use a bracket, and endashes to denote transition. E.g. I'd use an emdash in a sentence&mdash;such as here&mdash;to denote extra information, but I'd use an endash here to denote transition, e.g. "Adelaide–Sydney flight", or a date or value range, e.g. "1924–1925" and "125–126 miles", etc. Regarding the footnotes, there are a few ways of doing it. One way that it might be done is by adding the following mark up in text " " and then " " in the Notes or References section. There are other ways. HMS Duke of York (17) is an example of an article that uses this style. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been using the wrong dash for ages! It's going to take a while to correct them.... I prefer parentheses anyway. Thanks for the advice, for a while I thought I'd gone invisible ;O).Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried the note thing and all it's done is sit in the text. Where have I got it wrong?Keith-264 (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, you need to remove "<nowiki" and " ". I've used it here so that you could see the mark up code, otherwise it would be hidden. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd just worked that out and am hiding my blushes....Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Australian 4th brigade formation graphic.PNG)
Thanks for uploading File:Australian 4th brigade formation graphic.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved for now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

13th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
When you have a moment to review 13th Arkansas Infantry Regiment against the Class B checklist I would appreciate it. Thanks. Aleutian06 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir!Aleutian06 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft email to the AWM
Hi, I'd appreciate any comments you might have on an email I'm drafting to the AWM on the possibility of them releasing images under a CC-By license. I've started a sort-of centralised discussion of this at: User talk:Nick-D. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Nick, sorry I didn't get back in time to contribute. It appears you've sent the email already. Thanks for doing that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reg Saunders
Congratulations on the Reg Saunders article passing its FAC. If I read your user page correctly, this is your first FA, and I hope it's also the first of many. Regards Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, yes it's the first. I have hopes for Milne Bay also, and maybe one of the infantry battalions eventually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is -- I think that calls for some sort of celebration...


 * Cheers, Ian. That's a nice bit of bling! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me on your second FA. Two FAs in the space of a month is rather good going ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Poelcappelle & 1st Passchendaele
Greetings AR, hope your break went well. I've followed your recommendations (even the references) and also got a revision of 1st Pass done, although the lack of sources make it rather sketchy in places. I'm pleased to see Labbatt's back with his fresh pair of eyes as he's removed numerous infelicities. Sadly German and French Wiki are worse sourced than English.Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, it wasn't too bad as work goes. I had to go interstate to another base to help out as an instructor on a course. While I was there I managed to catch up with a few mates who are posted there at the same time and visit the Sappers' memorial and pay my respects to a couple of friends who paid the ultimate price. IRT the articles, good work. I will try to take a closer look over the weekend and see if I can help out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings again. I had a nightmare time trying to use the abbreviated footnotes form but I've had another go and thing that I've sorted it out.

Blah blah.

More blah.




 * Is this format that I need to make it work? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so. I don't generally use that version, but I think it looks right. There are a number of different methods. One example that I use can be seen here: 2nd Battalion (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I tried the harv method but got nowhere again. The wiki guide is useless and trying to do it by copying from your page and then trial and error only got me as far as the first time I tried. Ah well....Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, yes unfortunately sometimes I think one needs to be a teenage computer wizard to understand html etc. I used to understand that sort of stuff, but I think when I reached 25 or 26, my ability to remain technologically current diminished! Apologies if I haven't been able to help you as well as I should. My advice is if you have found a system that works (such as the one you outline above), stick to that. There shouldn't be any major dramas with it, even if you want to take the articles to a higher rating (either GA, A or FA). My understanding is that the rule there (at A and FA at least) is that so long as the citation system used is consistent through out, that there is no set standard required. For instance compare: Tom Derrick and Battle of Arawe. Both of these are Featured Articles, but both use different citation styles (albeit they are applied consistently). Anyway, good luck with the articles and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been a damn sight more helpful than the milhist clique! I had hoped to master the harv style because much of the Great War pages I write on have one or the other so I'm often using an inconsistent method. It's a pity that the help pages are written by people who know the system better than they can communicate their knowledge....Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

USCGC Catenary (WYTL-65606)
Greetings as they say in my part of Kansas. G'Day in your part of the world. Either way, I appreciate your effort on finishing the article up in a tidy way. One note of interest; although the reference said their were no armaments on board the Catenary it is understood in Coast Guard Regulations that a Boarding Officer undertaking Law Enforcement tasks shall be armed while performing those tasks. At least one of the five crew members would have had to have had Boarding Officer qualifications in order for the unit to perform its assigned functions. The term small arms was ment to cover that situation. Every Coast Guard cutter has a small arms locker containing at least one pistol, in the case of the Catenary it would have been a M1911 .45 caliber pistol, given the time period. Unreferenced, but a fact I know from having served on Coast Guard cutters during my career as a Coast Guardsman. I would imagine the USCG Historian's Office would consider the term "armament" as being at least a machine gun. Small matter...thanks for the tidy up in any case. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, happy to help. Thanks for the barnstar. IRT the armament, I'm sure you are correct. One picks up many small bits of information through service, but they are not always readily referenced. In this case, as a land lubber, I was assuming that when the ref says "armament none", it was referring to the fact that there were no fixed weapons, e.g. mounted machine-guns etc. But I've no doubt that while performing law enforcement work, the crew would need access to something whether it be a pistol or something else in case of emergencies. Maybe it would be expedient to add to the infobox "Armament: None fixed (although the crew had access to personal weapons)" or something similar. Not certain on this, though. Anyway, keep up the good work. If you have any questions or if you think I can help in any, please feel free to send me a message and I'll see if I can help out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, for your encouragement. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers, Hawkeye. Same to you. I don't usually drink on a school night, but will make an exception... ;-) No worries about Wareo. I'm working on an offline draft of the Huon Peninsula campaign at the moment, so that is taking most of my time. I've done the intro, background, prelude, Finschhafen and aftermath sections, but now have to add sections for the Japanese counter-attack, Pabu, Sattelberg, Wareo and Sio. It's probably going to take another week or so because for some reason I'm struggling to find motivation to write. I have some leave coming up, though, so maybe I will knock it off then. Anyway, once I've done a draft of that, I will turn back to Wareo and then try to put it through the review process. Not sure about FAC, though, as I want to turn back to 2/3rd Infantry Battalion at some stage. It was my grandfather's battalion so I have sentimental hopes of maybe taking it to FA; unfortunately it has a long way to go until it gets to that point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Historiography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox2 contains a piece on Pilckem Ridge 31 July 1917 and the OH which I fear got a bit out of hand. It's too big to use as a note and has some analysis in it not from a published source, (about the absence of published sources). Is it Wiki enough? Thanks, Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, sorry this is not really my strong suit. In terms of the reference in the note, I think that as it is a forum site it unfortunately wouldn't be considered a WP:Reliable source, so if possible I'd recommend hunting for something else. Overall, the historiography itself is probably fine, but if you are going to insert it into an article you need to be careful that it doesn't go too far. The relevant wiki policy is WP:UNDUE, which might provide some guidance, but largely it depends upon the article itself and how significant the event that is being discussed in the section in relation to the overall event being discussed in the article. I hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very helpful, thanks, I hope I'm not being a bore. Would it be ok as a stub (sans forum reference)? I've a mind to do a comparison of Tim Travers's (1987, anti) and Andrew Green's (2003, pro) view of the Official History which would fit better with Wiki criteria.Keith-264 (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No you're not being a bore. My suggestion would be to insert it as a section after the Aftermath section into the Battle of Pilckem Ridge article itself (while trying to be economical in the amount of words used so as not to overpower the rest of the article). I say this because if you created it as a stub, someone might nominate it for deletion with the argument that it is not notable by itself. Regarding the ref, yes probably best to remove it in the long run. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've toyed with pruning it but that raises the risk of vagueness. If I add material from Travers and Green, I think it might fit on the page about the OH here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Great_War and then I could link to it, avoiding the pitfall you mention about a stub. Clearly it's already too long to go on the Passchendaele or Pilckem pages uncut. Anyway, I'll do some today on T&G and see what it looks like. Thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)