User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 5

Tax
I'll do my tax tomorrow night, I promise... - Yeah. I've heard that before. (In fact, I've actually said it myself on more than than one occassion!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

45th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment Review
I have left a more detailed response to your review of the 45th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment on the talk page for the article, but I just wanted to leave a thank you on your talk page as well. You were very generous with your time and the review was a treasure trove of input for further improvement. You make a newcomer feel at home.
 * Awun (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

More Wikichevrons

 * Thanks, Dank. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempted Class A Review
G'day,

Actually, the Class A Review was what had me chuntering about with markup. Many thanks for straightening it out for me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, George. Good luck with the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Huon Peninsula campaign
Hi, Huon Peninsula campaign is a well composed, well ref'd cogent article - very good work overall. I edited some as it seems, to my eyes, some sentences are a bit long & involved and might be clearer, cleaner and easier to follow if broken down into smaller, more contained statements as I did on a couple. I'm reluctant to do more as I don't know the subject well enough and may screw it up, but will if you approve. Tttom1 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries. I appreciate you taking the time to have a look and your edits look pretty good to me. Feel free to have a go and I can just follow up behind if any adjustments are needed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, I did a bit more. Other than the commas and clauses, an excellent demonstration of how an article for wikipedia should be done. Good luck with it.Tttom1 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division
I'd have cheerfully gone to discuss changes, where ever, had there been any indication that there was a review going on, or that such a review meant that edits should be refrained from. Intersting though that none of the other edits have been undone or discouraged. Since you seem to be knowledgable, where do I go to find all these fiddly little rules that I keep learning about after the fact? RTO Trainer (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. The review page can be found here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry Division (United States). As you are obviously interested in the subject, I encourage you to take part in the review. You can do so by stating whether or not you think the article meets the A-class criteria listed here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class. You can also discuss changes that you think are required. In relation to the edit that I reverted, I will clarify why. It is not because edits should be refrained upon during a review, it was because your edit actually went against some of the advice that the nominator was getting on the review page. It also introduced some uncited content. At A-class, articles need to be fully referenced to reliable sources. In this regard, could you please add a reference for the information that you have added in this edit: ? If it cannot be referenced, then unfortunately I think it should be reverted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. When you recently edited 2/28th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of El Alamein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd Ypres pages
Can I have an opinion about section headings please? It's just dawned on me that the section headings might be dividers not subjects, which should go under subheadings. Is there a Wiki view about it? I'm synchronising the pages, sfn'ing the references and copy editing again so wouldn't like to overlook the point, as I think that they are getting close to B-class. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith. WP:MILMOS/C and MOS:HEAD might provide some policy guidance. In regards to the section headings on the Battle of Passchendaele article, my personal opinion is that the current configuration is a bit confusing, as there are currently at least three "Battles of 3rd Ypres campaign" sections, which doesn't seem intuitive to me. I'd just delete that heading and use level 3 subheadings of "First phase, Gough's command: May–August 1917", "Second phase, Plumer takes over: 25 August–10 November" and "Third phase, the rains return: 4 October–10 November" beneath a generic "Battle" level 2 heading. That is just my opinion, though, and it might pay to ask for a few other opinions before doing anything drastic. A peer review might be the best way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I fear that's the price of piecemeal editing. I haven't done much at all about that page for most of this year as I found that getting the other pages sorted out is taking a lot of time, then deciding to do a separate page ("tactical changes") to unload a lot of narrative took more. Do you know anyone who's interested? My efforts to compare notes have had little success apart from Labbatt so I fear that I am risking a lack of consensus (or is that a lack of interest....). Thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, no names spring to mind as being focused on that particular area, but I'm sure that there are a few within the project. My suggestion is to post a neutrally worded invitation on the main Milhist talk page (here), inviting people with opinions to join the discussion. That usually draws a couple of people to a discussion. By way of an example, you might post something like this on the Milhist talk page: "A discussion is currently taking place about the structure of the Battle of Passchendaele article. Any interested parties are invited to join in here." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I'll give it a try.Keith-264 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings again, I've gone ahead with changes to the Passchendaele page as you suggested, as no-one else commented and also removed a lot of material now available on the pages covering the series of battles. I've also finally managed to suss out sfn's and put them in all the pages. Having thought over the question of the purpose of the section headings (the double = ones) I'm doubtful about some of the subheading titles on those pages - "Background" and "Strategic background" don't look right. Can you suggest other pages to look at for ideas? I also plan to revamp the page on Messines but notice that it is a GA so I'll do that on a separate page rather than any more unilateral changes. I hope that all the other pages get up to B-class reasonably soon. Thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, some of the articles in Category:A-Class military history articles and Category:FA-Class military history articles might be useful for ideas as they represent some of Wikipedia's best military history articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher
AustralianRupert,

It is appreciated that you helped with the article. Adamdaley (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AustralianRupert,

I was wondering would you be able to list Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher as a "Peer Review"? As well as archiving the new assessment. Those two points would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, I've started the peer review for the article and it can be found here: Peer review/Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher/archive1. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean regarding archiving the new assessment, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Email me?
I'd like to get your opinion on a couple of points on the proposed internship process, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

20th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
Would you mind assessing 20th Arkansas Infantry Regiment against the Class B checklist. Thanks. Aleutian06 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sir! Aleutian06 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The cross of the Prince of Orange
I have translated Army Gold Medal and added to the article on the Dutch Wikipedia. To us, in the Netherlands, it would be of some interest to know the six military engagements that were remembered on the Prince's cross and his two clasps. Our Prince, later King William II of the Netherlands wore his Peninsular Gold Cross on many occasions.

The sources that I have ar not specific.

The exact name of the decoration is somewhat ambigious. Was it instituted as simply "a gold cross". Was it instituted by an Order in Council, a warrant or a simple order by the Ministry of War?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Groningen The Netherlands
 * Hello, sorry I'm not knowledgable on this topic. User:Gwinva might have more of an idea as they have worked extensively on the article on the English Wikipedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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] 09:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For c/e and comments at Talk:Szlachta's privileges. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I hope it helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
From a fellow Sapper for your edits to the Australian contribution to UNTAG. Do you think it is ready for rating? - AWHS (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries. Great work on this. It was well before my time in the corps began (I had only just started primary school a couple of years before!), but I've served with soldiers that deployed at the time (of which at least one is still in), so I find it a very interesting topic. The article is very close to ready for assessment against the B class criteria, IMO. I think it needs a couple more citations first, though. I've marked where I think they are needed using the "citation needed" tags. Once you've done that, I'd suggest listing it at WP:MHA for a B class review. Once that has been passed, I'd recommend putting it up for a peer review and then heading towards WP:GAN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, sounds like you are way in front of me here :-) Your comments appreciated. I have added a lot of refs that I had from newspaper cuttings at the time (pre-internet), most of which are not yet available online. They will probably all appear in 'trove' or similar 50 years after 1989 but for the next 27 years they are only on paper. Thanks for your help. AWHS (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. The article looks quite good. Thanks for your contribution to the encyclopedia. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Ceradon. Happy to help. Good luck with taking the article through GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A Foster’s for you

 * Cheers, that will do nicely. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Huon Peninsula campaign GAN
Hi, I've reviewed this article and left comments at: Talk:Huon Peninsula campaign/GA1. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

17th Construction Squadron
Hi, while googling I ran into User:Raafie/17th Construction Squadron, which looks like a decent draft. I've done a quick google check to see if it is a copyright violation, and it doesnt appear to be. Are the facts in the draft roughly accurate? If so we could take it to DYK after a bit of sourcing work. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, it appears roughly accurate, although to be honest I don't have much subject specific knowledge on the RAE's construction squadrons. The article would need to be updated, too, as the squadron continues to exist and is now part of the 6th Engineer Support Regiment (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Article looks reasonably good. I have served in the unit. It needs more refs but it is now well on the way.AWHS (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, there might be something in the Corps' official history. I will try to get the relevant volume out of the Defence Library Service next week and see what I can find. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a lot of public refs, access to volume 4 of the corps history would help a lot. I promoted it to an article.AWHS (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Polish Legions (Napoleonic)
Thanks, looks good. Now, I just need to find some GA reviewers. Casimir Pulaski has been waiting for one since May, I think... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Piotr. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a general shortage of reviewers these days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error
In the article 2nd Ranger Infantry Company (United States), thanks for fixing it when I messed up the image name - I had meant to correct the spelling of "San Francisco" in the caption only, but I got distracted or something and changed the image link inadvertently too. KConWiki (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for pointing out the error in the first place. I'd missed it originally. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Messines 1917
Battle of Messines greetings OzRupert, may I have an opinion about this page? I only realised that it was a "good article" when I altered my laptop settings having made numerous alterations piecemeal over the last couple of years. I've revised the page and consolidated the changes so I've put it in for reassessment for a B but wonder where it stands for another GA classification. Any suggestions? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, it looks in fairly good shape to me. I'd suggest putting it up for peer review and then depending upon the comments you get there, maybe take it to Milhist A-class review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings again, is there anything I need to do to keep the A-Class review going? (as I lie here listlessly with a serious illness - man flu) thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Preview
Did you notice this? Looking forward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. I had missed that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to be in Europe, so if you could keep an eye on it, that would be great. Regards. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Have a safe trip. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Much thanks! — Ed! (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Thanks for the barnstar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Milhist review
Thanks for your review and comments, I've responded on the review page, but I'm posting here to see if you could point me towards the duplicate links detection tool. It sounds really useful, but I can't find it, thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day Jim, apologies I should have linked to it at my review. You can find the script here: User:Ucucha/duplinks. Just add it to your monobook and then there will be a link in your "toolbox" on the left hand side of your screen. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay
Hey mate. I was just thinking about the Battle of Milne Bay infobox. Would it be an improvement to list the keys units involved? Currently this field isn't included. Anotherclown (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes that would probably be an improvement. There is a comprehensive orbat articl, though, so I would only want to include the main units, though, in the infobox. Probably just the brigade level formations and squadrons on the Allied side and the Japanese landing forces. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That didn't go down to well in the end. Oh well scratch that suggestion. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Cheers, Gerda. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, Sturm. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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] 00:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Lone Pine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bivouac (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) 10:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Milhist ACR for closing
How would I close it? I am willing to do it, just copy and paste the templates on my talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, sorry it's not as simple as pasting templates on your talkpage. The process is outlined in detail on the page I linked to; it is also summarised on WP:MHACR under the heading "A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators". I will try to summarise the steps here, though. The first step requires you to place the following templates on the assessment review page: and  ; on that same page you need to summarise the result, e.g. "Closed, no consensus to promote", or "Withdrawn" or "Promoted". Then you need to go to the article's talk page and tinker with the project tags. If it has been promoted, you change the class to "A". If not leave as is. You should also add ArticleHistory and add links to the review, revision IDs etc. If it was successful, add the article to the A class showcase here: WikiProject Military history/Showcase/A. If not successful, don't add it. If successful also add a link to the article in the Bugle and record the nominator's A-class credit in the A-class medal tracking page. The final step is to archive the assessment review page; this is done by removing the link to the transcluded page from WP:MHACR and adding it to the archive page: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2012. Depending on the result, it either goes here or WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2012/Failed. I understand that this is a complex process, but if you have a crack, you will soon get the hang of it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you review this diff that Nick made on Vilyam Fisher, you will see what needs to be done to the article talk page: . Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rupert, I am upto the articlehistory it says invalid status. Adamdaley (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam. Good work so far. No worries, leave the status blank in this case. I believe that it only accepts GA and FA. In this case they don't apply to the article as it hasn't gone through those reviews yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have saved the article talkpage. I'm going to look like a real "dumbass" especially when MarcusBritish is running for Coordinator this month and while the part in his paragraph about the ACW is about me which makes me feel bad about it due to several reasons which I have not disclosed to MarcusBritish since I read his application. Not sure what to do if I should run again as a Coordinator and send MarcusBritish a note concerning the ACW and my withdrawal from it. Adamdaley (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam. I've made the necessary fix to the article talk page. Apologies, I think most of the issue is that my instructions weren't clear. Please review my change and you will see what was required. Don't worry too much, it's all part of the learning process. You are doing fine. If you cover off on the next part of the closure, I can check that too. Then you will have more experience to build on for next time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've finished this off for you, as it is best not to let it sit too long while half way through the process. If you want to review what I did, the last couple of diffs are: and . I appreciate you stepping out of your comfort zone with this. If you have any questions about the process at all, please feel free to ask. Have a good night. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment of Capture of Malolos and Battle of Santo Tomas
I have edited the two articles above, and I hope they might be reassessed again against the B-class criteria. Also, could you please assess the Battle of Marilao River and Battle of Calumpit. Thank you.Arius1998 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Picking up abandoned threads of a past life
Hi "Rupert" picking up lost/abandoned threads now that dissertation is almost finished. :) Glad to see the MHP still thriving.  Will try to get back on more regularly now, and at least vote in election and start helping out with reviews.  :)  Cheers   auntieruth (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ruth, strangely enough it was only the other day that I was wondering if you would be back. Good to see that you are! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * great minds, as they say....I'll find a small project to pick up on, or maybe do some tiny bit of editing. Any suggestions appreciated.  :)  will have to relearn the codes of course.... auntieruth (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure you should lump yourself in with me as I'm no great mind. I think my IQ has gone down of late! ;-) Anyway, I'm not sure if you are keen to jump straight in to A-class reviews or not, but WikiProject Military history/Assessment/13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) could do with another reviewer, and the backlog at WP:GAN is as big as ever. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Battle of Milne Bay
This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Milne Bay know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 26, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 26, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The Battle of Milne Bay, also known as Operation RE by the Japanese, was a battle of the Pacific campaign of World War II from 25 August to 7 September 1942. Japanese naval troops, known as Kaigun Rikusentai, attacked the Allied airfields at Milne Bay that had been established on the eastern tip of New Guinea. The Japanese miscalculated the size of the garrison and initially landed a force roughly equivalent in size to one battalion on 25 August. Meanwhile the Allies, forewarned by intelligence from Ultra, had heavily reinforced the garrison. Despite suffering a significant setback at the outset, when part of the invasion force had its landing craft destroyed by Allied aircraft as they attempted to land on the coast behind the Australian defenders, the Japanese quickly pushed inland and began their advance towards the airfields. Heavy fighting followed as they came up against Australian Militia and the veteran Second Australian Imperial Force units. Allied air superiority helped tip the balance. Finding themselves outnumbered, lacking supplies and suffering heavy casualties, the Japanese were compelled to withdraw their forces. The battle is considered to be the first in the Pacific campaign in which Allied troops decisively defeated Japanese land forces. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks I will go back in time and tell the younger version of myself that...? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/3rd Field Regiment (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (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) 10:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Olongapo
Since you've read the article already, consider taking part of its Did you know nomination opened for discussion two days ago.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  16:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I probably don't have the content knowledge to contribute meaningfully to that debate, although I do agree that it would probably be okay to call it the "Battle of Olongapo". Unless a source calls it something else, it seems to make sense to call it that as it is reasonably descriptive as to what it was. Whether it should be merged or not probably comes down to the level of coverage. If it is well covered as a single event, I'd say it would be best to leave as is. If not, then maybe a merge is warranted, but then it needs to be considered if there is in fact an article that it could be merged into. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Desha
Just a note to let you know that Joseph Desha, an article you reviewed and supported during its MILHIST ACR, is now at FAC if you'd like to comment and/or !vote. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mlhist membership
I had not signed in that list, the "man" one, but I signed in the list of the Latin American military history task force. Should I sign in both? Is the newsletter distributed automatically to the members of the main list, or does it work with some other subscription system? Cambalachero (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think that the newsletter runs from the main list, but if you add your name here it should ensure that you receive the next edition: User:The ed17/sandbox3. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/14th Field Regiment (Australia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ambon and Victoria (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) 11:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead coord
Pointing Nick here as well. I believe we tied, and if so, I'm delighted. What do you guys think about each of us having the position for 4 months? If so, my only request is that I not take the first 4 months ... I'm a little busier than usual this fall, and I'd like to support what you guys are doing with the position and get a chance to follow your example. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Dan, I actually think the incumbent has first dibs and I was sort of hoping to avoid this dilemma by getting someone to vote for either you or Nick and not me... ;-) Seriously, though, what you propose sounds fine. I will be very busy late March to early April next year as I have to go on a promotion course, though, so if I can, I would like not to serve my time then, but otherwise any time is fine. I would be happy to take the first four months, if Nick is happy with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you both! Dank's suggestion looks good to me. As I'm going to be pretty busy with work and university over the next few weeks I'd be happy for AustralianRupert to take the first four months (up to the end of January). My preference would be to then take the next slot, as I may be travelling in mid or late next year. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guys, are you aware that Jimbo has just designated me Supreme Ruler of the Milhist Project ? [I'm joking]. Cheers !! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just quietly, I'm trying my hardest to line up some independent coordinators to support me taking the top job ;) Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll take the third shift. Okay, I'll post a notice at WT:MIL asking people if this is fine with them, and doing the usual "speak now" thing. I'm really happy you're both willing to do your bit. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A clever solution! If you're all fine with this arrangement, then I see no problems with it. Congratulations, and best of luck to all three of you! Kirill [talk] 02:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw guys, I'd like to have some place to talk occasionally ... the talk page of the acting lead coord (or any other talk page) would work for me, and you're both welcome to email me anytime. Nick is proposing over at WT:MHC that each of us calls himself "one of the lead coords" all year ... which works for me, as long as we make an effort to avoid a triumvirate. My preference would be not to change my style much from before I was lead coord (over the next 8 months) ... that is, if I was likely to jump in with an opinion then because I thought I could help, I'll probably jump in with an opinion now. The downside is there will probably be times when one of you feels like I pre-empted what you were doing or intended to do ... please speak up if that happens! IMO triumvirates fail mainly due to overcaution, when the members stop doing what they do best because they're trying not to offend anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I just emailed Tom and Marcus, I get the sense that there's some amount of talk-past-each-other going on about co-opting ... I'm doing the standard "tell me what you hear people saying", etc. I think that if we discuss possible deficiencies of RSKP and Arius on-wiki, that kind of undermines one of the points of support-only elections. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Dan. Personally I think this would be an ugly turn of events if we were forced into such a discussion and I have attempted to make my point without saying too much. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day. It is sometimes difficult to obtain broad consensus on Wiki. In this regard, I feel that the election result is as close to a broad consensus as we are going to achieve. As a volunteer group, if we – as co-ords – decide to arbitarily go against that consensus with no good reason (for instance if we were struggling to do everything, which we are currently not) then I worry that we are firstly undermining the election process and a secondly setting ourselves apart from the editors that elected us. Ultimately we should not be separated from them, just represent them. If they chose not to vote for people for whatever reason, we should honour that. I also don't think it is beneficial to discuss those reasons. On this, I think we are on the same page. Dan, regarding having you jump in, don't worry I won't get offended. We are all volunteers and as such everyone has a right to voice their opinion. My philosophy is that leadership is about promoting an environment where everyone feels comfortable with putting ideas out there and discussing them in a mature way. If they don't get taken on board, fine, we are still better off for having considered them. I have used this approach even in the hierarchical groups I've led in the military and so long as you have the right people and you do it at the right time, it works well. (For instance, it works with a group of combat engineers setting up reserve dems, but it doesn't necessarily work when the same group is doing a live fire obstacle breach!) I'm also fine with using one of our talkpages. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've also pulled my punches in that discussion to avoid embarrassment for the editors involved. My change to the infobox reflects the way the results of the election have been presented, and I'm not attached to it! - I'm not really one for titles. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I wasn't at all comfortable with one of Marcus's comments at WT:MHC, and told him so; he removed the comment and replied by email. There's nothing more I can or should do for now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Dan, sorry I was out yesterday afternoon/evening (church and family time). I will try to catch up on the discussions today (it's a public holiday where I am). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing ACR for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (F)
Gday,

I think I'm done now, pls check my work. Also I have two questions:


 * 1) Do A class lists get added to the WikiProject Military history/Showcase/A?
 * 2) MisterBee1966 has three ACR credits for the ACM at WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACM/Eligibility tracking - however it looks like two are for the same article (List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (D)). Is this a stuff up or should he be nominated for the ACM?

Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, on point one, no. They get listed here: WikiProject Military history/Showcase/AL. On point two, contact, wait out. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn, of course they do. Thanks I've done that now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On point two, it seems this is a typo. I think that the first one should be List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I finished off the last part of this process for you as I wasn't sure if you'd remembered to do this: the award nomination and listing the article in the newsletter. (I think everything has been done now, but in fact it has been a while since I closed anything so I might have missed something). Thanks for having a crack at this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger - I had already listed the article in the September bugle here . Was that wrong? You appear to have listed it in the October bugle so I'm guessing that is what I was meant to do. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey again. Given the hash I seem to have made of this I was just wondering if it would be possible to amend WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review to spell it out for old people like me. I assume we discuss any proposed rewording on the Coordinators talk page? Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it! (though I'd note that it gets a lot easier after you've closed a few ACRs; when I returned to being a coordinator last year it took me forever to close reviews, but now it only takes about 5-10 minutes). Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gents - done now. Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks fine. I've responded there. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

MILHIST ACR
Is it against the project's guidelines, or is it considered bad form, for a single editor to have multiple ACRs open at once? I think Bert T. Combs is ready for ACR, but John Adair's ACR hasn't closed yet. It's ok if I should wait; I'm used to it at FAC. I just thought I'd go ahead and list it while I have one of the sources checked out from the library. Thanks in advance. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 01:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, no it is fine to have a couple of ACRs open at any one time. Please feel free to list your article. Actually, we don't have a policy on it, but I would ask as a matter of courtesy to limit it to no more than three at any one time and, if possible, to help with the reviewing load by taking a look at another article that is up for review (this could be in any capacity, e.g. an image review, checking sources, or just proof reading). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I know very little about military topics, I usually don't do a review, but since I will have two open and I should have a little more time than normal over the next few days, I'll try to at least copyedit one. I can't imagine a scenario where I'd ever have three or more ready to go at one time. Thanks for the response. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, any help that you can provide would be greatly appreciated I'm sure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
In recognition of your election as co-lead co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the September 2012 to September 2013 period, please accept these co-ord stars. Congratulations and best of luck in the coming year. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 6th Division (Australia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Lloyd and Buna (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) 11:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Passchendaele
Greetings Oz, I've finished the first stage (!), all the pages have been revised expanded and standardised. Someone kindly suggested theat the Messines page wasn't far off an A class rating, which is what I want to work on next for all of them. Any suggestions? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, I just had a quick look at Messines. It looks quite good. I see that its last formal review was a GA review from 2009. As it has been a while, I would suggest listing it at WP:Peer Review to get some more eyes on it. See what comes of that and then nominate for an Milhist A-Class Review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done.Keith-264 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of announcements, so hopefully you get a few interested editors. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks, Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Mesines peer review
Greetings Oz, er what happens next?Keith-264 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, hopefully a few people will come along and comment on the peer review. I will try to take more of a look over the next couple of days (feeling a bit crook at the moment, though, so don't have much energy). Ruth has kindly offered below to take a look also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose that I ought to mention that some of the wording here

The Australians stopped the German attack with small-arms fire but many survivors began to withdraw from the area spontaneously, until stopped on the ridge. As dark fell New Zealand observers, under the impression that all the Australians had retired, called for the barrage to be brought closer to the observation line, when another German attack was feared imminent. The bombardment fell on the rest of the Australians, who fell back with many casualties, leaving the southern part of the Oosttaverne line unoccupied, as well as the gap around the Blauwepoortbeek. An SOS barrage on the IX Corps front, stopped a German counter-attack from the Roozebeke valley but many shells fell short and another informal withdrawal took place.

is tongue-in-cheek. Hope you feel better soon.Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Messines (1917)
there is a problem with one of the templates that I do not know how to fix. I'll be working on the rest of the article over the next week. auntieruth (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ruth. Which template is playing up? I just had a quick look and nothing stands out at the moment on my screen. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Military history reviewers' award !!!
Much appreciated ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Milne Bay - What should I do with my father's recollections?
My father, John Cameron, who is still alive and well was in the cipher section at Milne Bay. He has written the following about his experience, and the messages he sent during the battle. Do you think this is of interest? If so, what should we do with it?

John Cameron, his son. Camerojo (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

MILNE BAY

In 1942, I was 18 years old, and served in New Guinea. I was a cipher operator in Milne Force at the time of the Japanese invasion.

In handling the exchanges between Milne and New Guinea Forces, I had a much more detailed knowledge of command pressures and decisions than normal members of the Army. As I will die in the near future, I feel I should do something to set the record straight, because the official history is grossly astray. It is true that Milne Bay was the Japs first land defeat of the Pacific War, but the circumstances have been distorted.

On or about Friday 28 August, the commander of Milne Force, General Clowes, sent a signal to the commander of New Guinea Force, General Rowell, advising that our position was hopeless and requesting permission to evacuate. General Rowell signalled in reply that evacuation was impossible and we would have to stay and fight.

To stop our supplies falling into enemy hands, an order was given to blow up our bulk stores. Before this happened, those in the know collected the liquor and other desirables and used them to soften the blow of impending defeat.

At 1900 hours on Sunday August 30, the ABC radio news on Radio Australia stated that the position of the troops at Milne Bay was hopeless or desperate. I recorded in my personal diary that this was an exaggeration.

Later that night, I received an Order of Battle to be enciphered and sent to 18th Brigade. This required a lower grade code than the hatted code we used for New Guinea Force, and although I could encode it by the effective time, 0600, there was not time for it to be transmitted and decoded.

I took the message to Milne Force command centre, and explained the problem to G 1 ops, whose name, I think, was Major Singe, and suggested it might be best to send it in clear by a Bren Gun Carrier. I was told that I might as well suggest tying it to a bullet and shooting it to them, and to go and do my job.

I encoded it, and shortly before 0600 passed it to Signals for transmission. The next day the Jap advance reached the clearing that had been made in the palm plantations for a new air strip, where 18 Brigade, under Brigadier General Wootten, was waiting for them. As the Japs attempted to cross the clearing, they came under withering fire, and withdrew. We came under heavy naval fire for the next couple of days and suspected that the Japs were landing reinforcements, but they were actually evacuating.

About that time, I was posted to cipher at 18 Brigade, and clearing up the mess, I found the Order of Battle I had enciphered. It had never been decoded.

I believe the Japs had under-estimated our strength at Milne Bay, after their earlier dream run, and then over-estimated their opposition. The hero of Milne Bay was not General Clowes but Brigadier General Wootten and 18 Brigade. After all this time, I may be astray in some detail but of the basic facts I am certain.

John Roderick Alexander Cameron
 * G'day, John. My first suggestion would be to see if the Australian War Memorial would be interested in taking the statement into their collection. In the past, I have found a number of personal recollections/manuscripts there. Their website is here: [www.awm.gov.au]. If you contact the webmaster, they will be able to direct your enquiry to the appropriate person. You might also consider using it as the basis to write a magazine or journal article. The Military Historical Society of Australia might be interested (not sure, though). They can be found here: . Unfortunately, in terms of using the information for the Wikipedia article on Battle of Milne Bay, in its current form it wouldn't be considered to be a "reliable source" per the guidance at WP:RS, so it couldn't be used. Having said that, if you were to have the information published in something like Sabretache (The Military Historical Society of Australia's journal), as they conduct peer reviews prior to publishing, it would then be considered a "reliable source" under the Wikipedia policy, and you could use it to update the Wikipedia article. Apologies for the long-winded answer. I hope it helps somewhat. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks your prompt reply with this useful feedback. I have also posted on http://hellsbattlefield.com which is the website of Phillip Bradley's new book of that name. Camerojo (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

33 cent stamp & coin commemorating RMC Duntroon Centenary
Unfortunately, I don't have a 'reliable' source for the '33 cent RMC Centenary commemorative stamp and an illustrated envelope' or the coin (by Perth Mint). I note however, that the stamps and coins are currently available for sale at: http://www.militaryshop.com.au/catalogue/displayDecProduct/id/11836.html Victoriaedwards (talk)
 * No worries. I will leave it there for a bit and see if someone else can find something. I am thinking of taking the article towards GA, though, so it will need a citation then, or will probably need to be removed. I have the coin, by the way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army engineer diver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philippines campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

German New Guinea campaign
Hi AustralianRupert, I was wondering whether you had any opinion as to whether there should be a German New Guinea campaign article for the campaign to capture German New Guinea in 1914? There is enough material in the articles Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force, Siege of Toma and Battle of Bita Paka to hive off, reword and style to create the article. Do you have any other suggestions for the name of the article? I would like to start this and have it at least C class, when the centenary anniversary is remembered. Your thoughts and comments please. Newm30 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I haven't done much study on this topic, I'm afraid. This sounds reasonable, but I wonder if there is a term that the sources use that might be more descriptive? "Australian occupation of German New Guinea", perhaps? It might pay to ask a few others what they think. I think Anotherclown has done a bit of work in this area. Nick-D and Hawkeye7 might also know something of this era. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in, I was going to write an article on such a topic a while ago, but stole my thunder. There's enough to discuss here to justify an over-arching article (the subject has a whole volume to itself in the official history series), but calling it a 'campaign' is a bit much given how little fighting there was. Australian occupation of German New Guinea would be a good title. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I will get started on the article soon. Please feel free to jump in and copy edit, expand, criticise, reword as necessary. Regards Newm30 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is now up to Start class. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

School of Advanced Military Studies
The GA review for this article was closed out. It's ready for "Military History" review if you're interested. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for your time in looking at the article. When you get a chance, perhaps you could check it out again. I believe I've addressed your concerns, or at least furthered the discussion to allow speedy resolution in one of two directions for some.
 * Thanks again! --Airborne84 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

John Adair
Just a note to let you know that John Adair, an article you supported at MILHIST ACR, is now at FAC, in case you want to comment there. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke
Thanks for reviewing Clarke at the MILHIST A-Class review, I'm very happy with the outcome. The article is now at FAR, if you have any further comments to make please do as they are very welcome! Cheers. --Errant (chat!) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Messines
Thanks for your help with the peer review, any suggestions as to what next? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, happy to help. The next step might be a Milhist A-class review: WP:MHACR. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll give it a whirl.Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to request an A-class review but as usual the bumflufferies are beyond my limited computer-mojo, so I'll see what attention the bits I have done attract.Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been away for a bit. I will try to take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Lisbon Appt
Hi Rupert, I remember you found this interesting at the A-class review. Just a quick note to let you know it's now at FAC (again) if you're interested in having another look. Thanks, and I hope you're well and having a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm afraid I probably won't get a chance. I am heading off on an exercise next week which will be followed by a short course in Melbourne. As such, I won't be back for a month from next Tuesday. I might get some internet access in that time, although it will probably only be long enough to check with the wife and kid. If the FAC is still open when I get back in mid-December I will try to take a look. Anyway, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, good luck with the exercise and the course, keep well and thanks again for the very kind words on the article! —Cliftonian (talk)</b></b> 11:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of New Zealander Victoria Cross recipients, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kalamai, Messines and Crevecoeur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

School of Advanced Military Studies A-class review
Hello. I addressed your comments on the above here. When you get a chance, please revisit to see if I've adequately addressed your concerns. I also invite you to comment on Nick-D's concerns regarding the use of sources. If these sources cannot be used without the appearance of POV, it seems that the two courses of action are to (1) cut a quarter to a half of the article's content regarding the course or (2) forever relegate the article to B-class status. Or, at least until a source not connected to the school publishes a comprehensive work on the school itself. Given small size of the school, I'm not sure if this will happen, regardless of its apparent reputation. Thanks for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had to go away with work for a month. I'm back now, but it appears that the review has been closed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about Australian troops in Kairo, 1915
Hello Rupert,

as you worked on the article Military history of Australia during World War I I think its the best to ask you about this. I currently read Hitlers First War by Thomas Weber (a real good read) and came across the following incident: In chapter six, Weber mentions that on Good Friday 1915, Australian troops looted and burnt down the red light district in Kairo. As this incident is not mentioned in the article, have you ever came across it in other books? And were there maybe more like this which could be made into a new section within the article? Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have come across this before in any of my sources, but the incident doesn't surprise me. I'd be careful inserting it into that article, though, as it might be WP:UNDUE in such a broad article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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 Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice book review Oz.Keith-264 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Malaya, Gordon Bennett, Ambon and Batavia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

MHOTY
Gday. Did you mean to "nowiki" your signature in the last part of the MHOTY post ? Anotherclown (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd forgotten to turn those off. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks very much for the nomination! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've been very impressed by your work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wareo
Those maps have been up for a while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_wareo_new_guinea.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_showing_location_of_Wareo%2C_Papua_New_Guinea.jpg SpoolWhippets (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gday SpoolWhippets. AR is currently out of town until the end of the week and doesn't have an internet connection. These maps look great so I've taken the liberty of adding them to the Battle of Wareo article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day. I'm back now. Great work with those maps, SpoolWhippets. Thanks. Cheers for adding them to the article, too, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Compliments of the season to you also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A sign o' the times?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Keith-264 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fear so. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Historian of the Year
Thank you for the nomination. I don't deserve to win, though, but luckily I think that is very unlikely indeed! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for your work this year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 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 Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

 * Cheers, Ed. Same to you. It's been great to spend some time with family, as it has been a very busy year at work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merlin O'Neill
Thank you for your suggestions on finishing the O'Neill article. Zawed beat me to the punch on completing the expansion of a lede and gave me some encouragement on finding a resource it could use to complete a retirement section. Thank you for your help and encouragement. Between you and Zawed and Hawkeye7 I have been getting a lot of help from "down under"... Cheers, Mate...and a prosperious New Year! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Militia vs CMF
I thought I'd got these... How did I miss so many ? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome help
I left such a mess of things and I'm thankful for your time. I'm one of those that goes back and forth to different articles adding what little I can as I go then start getting vertigo trying to keep the Henrys and Philips and Kiliaens straight, in addition to them swapping middle names ...I sorta picture a cup stacking competition, it was a Dutch tradition they must have been looking into the future thinking "lets see if they can figure this maze out". ... anyway I greatly appreciate your help.... JGVR (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, good luck with your project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rain, mud and delays
Greetings Oz, do you know of anyone who's expert in doing graphs or tables? I am going to add weather data to some pages but wonder if typing them out is the best way to present the data (same might go for OoB). If I can find someone who knows how, I can try to present the data succinctly rather than laboriously typing "General weather conditions are taken from Met Office records and temperature and rainfall figures from Vlamertinghe 3.5 km west of Ypres, recorded in the General Headquarters Weather Diary.[2] 31 July, 69°F/overcast/21.7mm rain, 1 August, 59°F/5.3mm rain, 2 August, 59°F/5.3mm rain, 3 August, 59°F/9.9mm rain, 4 August, 66°F/overcast/4.9mm rain, 5 August, 73°F/clear/no rain, 6 August, 71°F/50% cloud/0.1mm rain, 7 August, 69°F/cloudy/no rain, 8 August, 71°F/25% cloud/10.2mm rain, 9 August, 68°F/clear/0.2mm rain, 10 August, 69°F/clear/1.5mm rain.[3]" on each page. Oh and happy noo-ear.Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this meet your intent? Headings and presentation can be tweaked if you want - also what refs need to be included? Anotherclown (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks AnotherC, that's what I have in mind, unless it can be done as a graph. When the Barrage Lifts: Topographical History and Commentary on the Battle of the Somme, 1916 by Gerald Gliddon has a chronology, pp 415-424 and I fancy trying to graph the date, rain, max and min temperatures (his figures are in Farenheit as well) and cloud cover, to see what it shows about weather affecting military operations. I wonder if a table is too big for a wiki page but it's analogous to a map and we don't have enough of those. For the parts of 3rd Ypres and the Somme where rain affected events, like a picture it might help save a thousand words. I'll try the table template you've kindly provided to see if it helps and I'll do a bit of graphing on paper too. Thank you very much. Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm no use with the graphs I'm afraid but feel free to drop me a line if you run into any trouble with the coding for the table (if you go with that option). FYI you can change it to left, centre or right alignment by altering this part here: "align=left". Good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here's what happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Keith-264/sandbox ahem!Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Managed it.Keith-264 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What happens now? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, do you mean in relation to the Messines ACR? If so, I'd suggest sending a message to those that have commented and ask them to take a look at your changes, and if they are happy to support, or if they think more work is required. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that after the weekend.Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ce
2000 yd what does the adj bit do?Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, it makes the value present as an adjective. E.g instead of "a 2,000 yards (1,800 m) fence", it would present as "a 2,000-yard (1,800 m) fence". Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

5th Aviation Regiment
I just saw this, and agree with you - I'm pretty sure that I wrote some of those words which are now on the Army website. Pretty poor practice for whoever in the unit did this! It's not as funny as when the East Timorese ministry of defence plagiarized large chunks of the Timor Leste Defence Force article, with the result that it was probably the only military force in the world whose official website stated it was suffering from significant disciplinary problems! Happy new year by the way. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day Nick, Happy New Year to you too! Yeah I found that by accident this morning when I was looking for a citation for the regiment's structure. I spent about an hour going through the article history. The Army's new website was released only recently and most of the content on our article was there well before then. I've come across some of my own writing from Wikipedia used in Army publications - the RMC article for instance - so I was fairly confident that that was what had happened. Re your example of the Timor Leste Defence Force, that is pretty funny. :-) Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Hurtgen Forest article
I saw that you are one of the leads on the wikiproject military history group. Anyways there is some numbskull who keeps vandalizing the Battle of Hurtgen Forest article and I was wondering if your position gives you any power to do something about it? Essentially the guy keeps changing the casualty figures to 50,000 Americans (Killed!) and 12,000 Germans. Before he did this it was listed as 33,000 US casualties and 28,000 Germans, backed up with a source. He first changed the figures to 50,000 and 12,000 respectively while leaving in the original source for 33,000 and 28,000 respectively. I changed it back twice and made mention in the edits the source cited did not line up with this guys figures. He then recently changed back the numbers to 50,000 and 12,000 AND deleted the citation without replacing it with another. He also added in some line about the battle being a classic example of military failure.

The guy obviously has an agenda, but nothing stops him from posting his uncited casualty figures. Frankly this is a boring game to play, to check back ever few days to undo his edits. Not sure if you can do anything but if you can it would be appreciated.Wokelly (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to jump in, the editor in question appears to be . I'd suggest trying to talk to them about their motivations here; given that http://ww2db.com probably isn't a reliable source, they may be thinking of some other source (or they may be a vandal). Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, to answer your question, being a co-ord doesn't give me any extra "power" to intervene in these situations. In terms of finding a solution, I think Nick has a fair point. Have you tried to discuss your concerns with the editor in question? If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest contacting them on their talk page. Additionally, the entire article isn't very well referenced and could do with the addition of more citations to verify the information in the article. If various sources provide differing casualty figures, these could all be discussed so long as they are referenced to reliable sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't say I have. To be honest I may have mistaken who it was changing things, I had thought it was one of the guys with the random IP address. Didn't realize it was Magneto. I wouldn't mind the casualty figures if he posted a source. The problem is he changed the casualty figures while leaving the old source which stated different figures. Then eventually deleted the source all together and put his figures in. While ww2db may not be a scholarly source, it is the only one that has been posted on the page listing casualties, so I figure it is better than uncited number. Anyways I will send the guy a message and see what he says. Thanks for the help. Wokelly (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) ACR
First, let me thank you for your contributions to my article recently, which is undergoing A-class review. This is my first "rodeo", so to speak, and I intend to go for GAN as well as FAC after ACR is completed. That brings me to my next question, which is -- is there anything else I need to do? I think the ACR has been open for about 16 days, and has garnered 3 supports, without any outstanding issues. I would be happy to act on any suggestions you or any other editor may have, it just seems like suggestions aren't forthcoming at this stage. Thanks again!  Cdtew  (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, looks like its made it through. Feel free to comment on my GAN, though!  Cdtew  (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK Nomination: Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher
User:AustralianRupert,

I was wondering if you would be able to nominate Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher for me? It would be appreciated if you would be able to do this for me prior to February 10th. Hope things are going well for you. Adamdaley (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, my understanding is that the article is not eligible for DYK unless it has recently been expanded five fold. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks. Good to hear from you. Adamdaley (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Find-a-Grave for Green
Hello Rupert. Please take a look at the Find-A-Grave listing for Charles Hercules Green at the External links. Perhaps we could talk about that (and other Australian) listings. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, what are your concerns? AustralianRupert (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday AR. Slightly off-topic but thanks for these they look fine. Anotherclown (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you'd like to maintain the FAG listings for him and the other Australians at the UNC Pusan.--S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, probably not, I'm afraid. I've got a lot on at work at the moment, so probably can't take on too many more projects for the next six months or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. I'm sending a similar message to Clown. We will see.--S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army in World War II
Hi, I've finished modifying the POW section of the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks again Nick, that is more Army focused than my version. Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-Class and FAC reviews

 * Thanks, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Milhist reviewers' award
Thank you very much! I hope to contribute more to the WP:MILHIST in the future.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, that would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On that theme, could you please give me an advice? I'm getting close to nominating Operation Storm article at the GAN (for starters, hopefully heading for FAC after more copyediting). I just finished the infobox and came across a dilemma - should the figures and other information there carry repeated references from the article body or not? What about the (still under construction) lede?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, my understanding is that if something is referenced in the body, it doesn't need to be referenced in the lead or in the infobox. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI?
FYI: There's a new kid on the block who, at first glance, looks like he could be a useful addition to the OzMilHist community. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Happy New Year! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you too. Good to see a new editor. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Page merging question
Greetings Oz, can I have an opinion please? I'm contemplating doing a page to round off the battle of the Somme in January-March 1917 which started again just before the German retirement to the Hindenburg line and apparently made the Germans begin before they were ready. There are already two pages: Alberich (World War I German operation) and Hindenburg Line. I'm not sure we need two pages, never mind a third so is there a procedure for proposing a merger?Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, this page should provide you with a step by step breakdown of the process: Merging. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I'll do mine in the sandbox then take it from there.Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Something for a laugh
You might get a chuckle out of this: Wikipedia:Template:cite guy in bar. Anotherclown (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome! :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

 * You bewt! Cheers, Hawkeye, that's most appreciated. Have a good one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1st Royal New South Wales Lancers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Rafah (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) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review for Corps of Colonial Marines
Hello AustralianRupert,

Thanks for helping out, by performing such a review. I have been poorly for the past few days (nothing too serious), so I have only just noticed your post. I shall provide some comments on the GA Review page itself.

I would like to thank you for having been courteous and positive in your communication.

Best Wishes, Keith_H99 Keith H99 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(PS: The Colonial Marines were raiding the Atlantic coast in 1814. One year previous, naturalised Australians, who had transferred back from the New South Wales Corps to the 8th Royal Veteran Battalion, were the ones carrying out the coastal raids in 1813!)


 * G'day Rupert! Just a courtesy note, in relation to the requested copy edit. I did make a submission on 9 February 2013 at 08:43 Greenwich Mean Time. There does appear to be demand for the service which outstrips supply. I am checking the article every day, and as soon as I have any news, I'll let you know asap. Cheers. Keith H99 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith. Yes, I saw that you'd posted a request. Unfortunately I have to head out of town on Sunday and will be without internet for six weeks. I'm concerned that the article won't get copy editted until after I leave, but I don't want to leave the review incomplete when I go. As such, I will have a go at copy editing a few things and then look to close the review today. You can then leave your request for a copy edit open and eventually someone will get around to it, and that should set your article up for the next stage (review review and/or Military history project A-class Review) if you are keen. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Rupert, thanks for the feedback. As and when the review is completed, this will be in accordance with the concept of 'If you can improve it further, please do so.' I've been pleased to get the article to this point. It has been a considerable effort, and I think further improvements (with a view to A-class) would either kill me or accelerate my hair loss! Thank you very much for having matched my efforts, with regard to the review. It's been a bit like a mini-dissertation. Have a good trip. Cheers Keith H99 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ICB / ACB
In 1970, the Infantry Combat Badge was instituted to recognise the service of Army personnel in battle or on operations; however, only infantry personnel were eligible for the award. - I don't pretend to be an expert, but my reading of the DI(G)PERS suggests that it could be awarded to non-infantry personnel who were performing an infantry role. Hence I'm not sure your "however" clause is 100% correct. (The other changes you've made to Army Combat Badge, however, are definite improvements.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * G'day, I've tweaked this now. Does this address your concern? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to sound even thicker than usual, but what did you tweak? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the diff . Please feel free to change it further if you prefer a different wording. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe my buffers need flushing? Or something? Thanks. Yes, that does address my concern. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(BTW: It looks like there are copyright problems with the ACB picture. Presumably we are in for an action replay of the ICB picture experience? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC) )

FYI?
Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Flying Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank McNamara (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) 08:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No worries, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Flying Corps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Cambrai and Lens (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) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

About my article
Hi there. The tweaks that you've done are just excellent, and I think I've fixed most of what you wrote here. Greetings ;). Pietje96 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries. I have made a couple more tweaks and added a some more comments on the review page. Please make sure that you respond on the review page, as other reviewers won't necessarily think to come here. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Military history of Asian Americans

 * Thanks, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

February GOCE blitz
You may not see this for a while, but thanks for the good job on Military History of Asian Americans; I signed you up for the blitz so you'd get credit for the article. Hope to see you again when you get back and all the best,  Mini  apolis  16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Australian Flying Corps
Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

February 2013 blitz barnstar

 * Thank you! AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy is now GA
Audie Murphy made it to GA. Thank you so much for all the Peer Review advice that helped get it there. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey AustralianRupert; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI?
There is a proposal to rename "Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia" to "Australian honours system" at Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will have a look if the discussion is still going. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2/4th Pioneer Battalion (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Division


 * Australian Flying Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Reading

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

ODM of Oz => Oz honours system
In case you were not aware, there is a proposal to rename "Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia" to "Australian honours system" at Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia, and it has attracted (unexpectedly to me) lengthy discussion. Even if you disagree with me, I'd appreciate it if you looked at it and added your opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've had a read through the arguments and, to be honest, I don't think I'd be able to add much to the discussion. What seemed to me to be a relatively simple issue on first glance, now doesn't seem so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bother. That's the same place I had arrived at. I was expecting (OK, hoping,) that you would have a nice bright light that would show me (and others) the other end of the tunnel that the conversation seems to be going round in circles within. C'est la vie. Thanks for having a look. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Nice copy edit work! I moved the discussion to the article talk page from WP:GOCE since it got archived and in a dead track. Codrin.B (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian contribution to UNTAG
Dear Australian Rupert, Thank you for your excellent review and very helpful comments for the A-Class review for the Australian contribution to UNTAG. All of the issues have been addressed. The article is now vastly improved. With thanks. AWHS (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Thanks, mate. I might have to start doing less reviews, so I can qualify for a different award... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

List of GC recipients and Bougainville
I had no idea that a review was underway on the List of GC recipients. Only listing 157 of 406 recipients was a major failing. Nationally is not a failing in the article but a Wikipedia failing since there is no definition as to what it means; force, birth, citizenship or residence. Is there a Wikipedia policy on the contents of a list? There are many separate lists for many medals and I am horrified at the amount of duplication. I was also surprised at the request for references. The problem with this list is that the same reference is included in three separate columns of most entries. I fail to see why you would need any reference if the name is referenced to an article on the recipient. Why would you need ‘General references’ since these would be on the main article? But if you have them, only the GC Register and Brazier are correct. The VC or GC books edited by Ashcroft are mainly text from auction catalogues. Valuable from the point of view of auctions and sales but otherwise a poor reference. Hebblethwaite is a great resource but it is a nine booklet series with addenda published between 2005 and 2008. The Medal Yearbook is publsihed in September of each year for the following year. I had a look at the Bougainville Campaign article and suggest that instead of splitting it into Books and Online that it be split into Official histories and Books. I would only list Long and Odgers, then Miller, Shaw, Morison and Craven in the Official histories section. I would ask that the reference to my article on External links be deleted. I have emailed Digger History and requested that it be deleted for the following reasons.
 * It does not indicate when and where it was published.
 * It does not indicate it is a condensed version.
 * It includes additional material from the 42nd Battalion history that I respect but disagree with and was not part of my article.
 * Furthermore I wrote the text for a more comprehensive pictorial booklet on the subject and have no desire to update the earlier work.

Rattey, who was the first of six Australians awarded the VC in 1945, joined the Militia pre war and had been mobilized for full time service in 1941 and like many in the Militia had volunteered to join the AIF in 1942. His battalion like most of the battalions of the 3rd Division AIF including Partridge’s 8th Battalion had been Militia battalions but with more than 75% of their strength joining the AIF had become AIF battalions by 1945. Partridge, as well as being the only Militia VC, was the last Australian awarded the VC in the Second World War, the 2nd last servicemen awarded the VC in that conflict and the last land award of the war. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Anthony, thanks for the suggestions. Regarding the Bougainville Campaign article, I've removed the external link as requested and just merged all the references. Please feel free to jump in and the article if you are keen as it is by no means complete. Regarding the content of lists, perhaps the policy is contained here: Manual of Style/Lists I don't really know, as my involvement with the review was simply as a co-ordinator (which basically just means I promote it if consensus is established, or I don't if there is no consensus). If you can't find anything in that link, maybe someone at Featured lists might be able to help? Regarding the reference request, I'd say that the requirement to provide specific citations for most fields developed due to concerns about seemingly uncited information. The argument about references being in the main (linked) article is not one that I've seen accepted at high level reviews like A-class or Featured before, but the process is evolving and if you have concerns about citation requirements in A-class reviews, please feel free to bring them up on the main Milhist talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history) as it might be something others have an opinion about, and if you can produce a consensus you might be able to influence the way standards are set. The specific concerns about the sources on the lists themselves (e.g. your point about the use of Ashcroft), probably should be raised on the indivdual talk pages; as they are Featured Lists, I imagine that someone will be able to respond to your concerns pretty quickly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Bougainville. Before I go offline for a few days I will have a look at the last sentence. Feel free to modify my modification. Thanks for removing the external link. Manual of Style/Lists is a very good place to start examining the policy issues that I would like addressed. I support the concept of specific citations but I am concerned about implementation. I would be seeking consensus on any change and since my expertise is military history I will go to the Milhist talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history) My present thinking before carefully consulting present policy and getting advice is a twofold approach. If the recipient has a Wikipedia article then a link to the article should be sufficient citation. If the recipient has no Wikipedia article then a reference to the London Gazette would be sufficient. The list should not be a mini biography. Thanks for explaining you role as co-ordinator and thanks for the work you do. I did my voluntary service for many years on the Federal Council of the Military Historical Society of Australia including nine years as editor of Sabretache. I am delighted with new editor who is based in Adelaide and I have moved to Brisbane. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I swapped Brisbane for Adelaide due to work... AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Garfield Finlay
G'day, Rupert,

Many thanks for the page listings for Finlay. I perused them avidly. Taught me a bit about the Mid Eastern theater in the Great War.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, George, good work adding that extra information. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ancre
Thanks for looking at the Operations Ancre page, I thought I'd got rid of most of the typos....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, Keith, happy to help. Have a good weekend. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment!
Thanks for assessing 24th Special Tactics Squadron. I hope you don't mind me asking but since there isn't much information on the unit do you think it would be appropriate to expand the history section based off individual's actions in events? A for-instance would be to add information relating to the Battle of Takur Ghar because John Chapman, who was a member of the 24th STS at the time, fought and died in the battle and was posthumously awarded the Air Force Cross. Thanks for your time, —  - dain   omite    18:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I think you could add something on that, but my main concern relates to the unit's earlier history. The infobox says its predecessor units existed during World War II, but the history section doesn't include this at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah gotcha, yeah I haven't been able to find anything on the WWII unit heritage unfortunately. I'll keep on looking though! —  - dain   omite    22:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Some help would be nice
Hey AustralianRupert thanks for you're contribution to the article Bathurst War. I have been away for awhile but I'm back now ^_^ I have just started to redevelop the page Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars so don't be alarmed that it's missng a big chunk of info I'm gradually writing it up. If you would like to help I would be most thankful!--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd be happy to help if I can, but I don't have much in the way of sourcing so will probably just have to limit my involvement to copy editing, I'm afraid. I'm very interested to see what you come up with, though. Good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign order of battle
Hi AustralianRupert, I just started to add the naval forces to the Gallipoli Campaign order of battle, and found this List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli. Should we merge? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm not sure to be honest. Maybe it would be best to put a merge discussion on the talk page and see what others think? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Howe ACR
Rupert, thank you for your comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert Howe (Continental Army officer). Just wanted to follow up with you and let you know I've taken a crack at your suggestions if you'd like to give it another look. Thanks again for your help!  Cdtew  (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will try to take a look shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See my reply on the ACR page; this is a review for Robert Howe - the article at FAC is James Moore (Continental Army officer), which is a different article in the same series. I appreciate your continued help with the Howe review. Feel free to comment on the James Moore FAC as well, if interested!   Cdtew  (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Apologies for that. Not sure what I was thinking. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies
D'oh! I should've stuck In use on Bryan D. Brown, my apologies. I believe I got all of your tweaks back in there where the sentence structure was still there. Jeez, I think that was a solid six hours of expansion I did today, whew! Thanks again, —  - dain   omite    07:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Harvard
What's the difference between doing Harvard references like this ref= and * ?Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day Keith, I don't think there is any practical difference, i.e. it will appear the same when reading the page. Beyond that, I couldn't give you a technical answer. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very shaky about inline notations, I only had a vague grasp of long ones when I discovered sfn's, which I've used ever since. Some of the variations seem a matter of taste and some don't so you've put my mind at rest. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again
Hi AustralianRupert, I am looking for an opinion for the article I am working on Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. The historian John Conner writes that Pemulwuys war ended in 1802 with his death and Tedburys War began in 1808-1809. But he doesn't give an opinion on the era of time between these two conflicts. From what I can tell the year 1803 was very peaceful so it certainly ended Pemulwuys campaign, however, beginning in 1804-1805 there was largescale conflict going on. Should I add a fourth war into the list? I don't believe it was a continuation of Pemulwuys war or an early beginning to Tedburys War due to the years of peace between them. And from what I can tell the 1804-1805 conflict was far more bloody than Tedburys war. What's your opinion on this?--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the topic to give you a definative answer. I suppose it comes down to how the references treat the topic. Sorry. Perhaps it might be something to ask a wider audience at WT:MIL. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi AustralianRupert, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I'd be happy to participate. Please post the survey on this page and I will respond here; I don't have email enabled through my Wikipedia account for privacy reasons. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi AustralianRupert,
 * Thank you very much for your quick response and taking your time to finish the survey.


 * To be brief, we perform an analysis of communication patterns in WikiProjects to assess what communication patterns are predictive of efficient operation. We consider the promotion of articles up the Wikipedia quality scale to be a measurable goal of WikiProjects. Efficient projects manage to achieve promotions with a relatively small number of edits. Base on this study, we can provide insights into the health of online teams and share these knowledge and experience among teams for the benefits of whole community.
 * To make our results more convicing, we would like to know your answers for the following questions:


 * (1) Compared with other WikiProjects, is WikiProject Military History well organized and functioning in terms of providing help for new editors, coordinating edit and discussion activities among editors, assessing the quality of project-related articles, reaching consensus and other aspects?
 * (2) We find that WikiProject Military History has been very efficient from the beginning (i.e., from 2006) in that it achieves promotions with a relatively small number of edits (the project has also been very productive with more than 100 above C-class promotions per year). In your experience, what factors make the project so efficient? Are there relationship between the efficiency of WikiProject and the communications in project talk pages?


 * (3) In your experience, which other WikiProjects are also well-organized, efficient and productive that deserve further investigation and more concentration for researchers?


 * Many thanks for your participation and support! We really appreciate your help very much!
 * Hope the survey doesn't add too much to your workload.


 * Best regards. Xiangju (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(1) I can't really compare Milhist to any other project as it is the only project I have worked with. I believe that the project performs quite well in terms of organisation overall, particularly in relation to assessment of project-related articles, although there is room for improvement in terms of welcoming new editors/providing help. The project has a very active talk page, although some posts aren't always responded (this is probably because of a number of reasons), while other posts receive a lot of responses, which is good for establishing consensus. In terms of assessment, the project has a very active A-class review, that is quite successful in preparing articles for FAC. Nevertheless, to a certain extent this process only maintains its viability because of the involvement of a core group editors and to be sucessful in the long term, we need more editors to feel comfortable nominating their articles for ACR and to participate as reviewers.
 * Responses

(2) IMO, the project's success hinges upon the enthusiasm of its members and their willingness to engage with others. Without this, it would not be a project but a group of individuals. IMO the key to maintaining this willingness is creating a system that supports its members and helps them to achieve their goals; in doing so, they will support the system and help others achieve their goals. Communication is a key to this, which the project does through its talk page, and its newsletter, The Bugle. Additionally, there is a team of co-ordinators, who are elected yearly, who volunteer to undertake many of the adminstrative tasks that help provide a small amount of direction (e.g. closing A-class reviews, tallying up contest results, handing out awards, publishing the newsletter, co-ordinating drives, welcoming new members, answering questions on the talk page, etc.)

(3) I'm sorry, I don't have much experience of other projects, so I probably couldn't answer this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi AustralianRupert, many thanks for your very detail response to the survey. They are very helpful and valable to our study. Best of luck. Xiangju (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Improving a list
Hi! Once again, thanks for the recent ACR comments. I'm not that experienced with MILHIST lists, so could you please take a quick look at the List of minefields in Croatia and provide some feedback on possible improvements of the article? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I had a quick look. To be honest, I don't have much experience with lists. I wonder, though, if a few more details could be added. For instance, if you know the dates of when each minefield was laid, it might makes sense to add that to another column, or the Notes perhaps. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 48th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for an opinion
The drive-bys are at it again on the Passchendaele page so I wonder if you might suggest an alternative to head-butting. Is there a dispute resolution procedure or a "historical accuracy determination" process I can explore? (sorry for asking such a sterile question when you're busy). Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, posting at the Dispute resolution noticeboard might be a way of resolving the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Commissioned an officer
There are two acceptable ways to say someone joined the officer class. I think one is older, more formal, while the second seems newer, and perhaps more American:
 * "He was commissioned an officer."
 * "He was commissioned as an officer."

This is regard to Makoto Ogawa (pilot), but of course it applies very widely. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Have a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 11th Army (German Empire), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Ypres (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) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMQS Midge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Draught (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) 11:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 9 Gorkha Rifles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North West Frontier (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) 10:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko
Are you happy with this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tadeusz Kościuszko
This is just a reminder that I've replied there to your comments, and I wonder if you'd consider supporting now? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE June blitz

 * No worries, I actually copy-edited two articles, but it seems when I added link on the blitz page, I added a typo so it didn't link across. Anyway, have a good day. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Layout error
Battle of Guillemont Would you mind having a quick look at the bottom of the page as the categories aren't showing properly and there's a red references tag. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed thanksKeith-264 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oz VCs
Regarding your edit. There I was hoping you had solved the mysteries of the locations of Peter Badcoe's and Edward Kenna's medals! (Big sigh ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No luck, unfortunately. I will add something if I find anything, though. PS, sorry for the late reply. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562061649 your edit] to Battle of Hamel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * last=Mays |first=H. |url=http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A080224b.htm |title=Dalziel, Henry 1893–1965 |work=Australian Dictionary of Biography |volume=Volume 8 |publisher=Melbourne

Assessments
Even though my attempts to do my fair share of assessments hasn't got far, I've been looking for pages which my sources can verify so I've been adding citations on various pages and resisting the temptation to rewrite the page (apart from Op Hush, I got a bit carried away with that one;O)).Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)