User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 8

Reg Pollard (general)
Hi Rupert, just following up, really appreciated your comment on the article; did you feel you could do the GAN too? No pressure, just wanted to check before I ask anywhere else... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology question
Hey, Sturmvogel 66 suggested that Peacemaker67 and yourself may be to aid in a terminology discussion taking place here. Would you care to take a glance, and offer an opinion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

450 Sqn
Congrats mate, another successful co-nom... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you both! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for your input along the way, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, gents! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 32nd Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CAPT Arthur Thomas Rogers, MC killed in action near Nauroy, France, 29 September 1918 . Anotherclown (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1
Thanks for your review of Sieges of Taunton at A-class review. I've now listed the article at Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias talk 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)
Hello,

When you have a chance, would you be so kind to look at Charles Schroeter (Medal of Honor)?

My primary goal is to get the article to B class. No doubt I have missed some grammar and such.

Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I had a quick look and started some copy editing, but stopped when I realised I was probably changing too much. There are a few issues that I can see (mainly with tone, over use of headings and economy of writing), but I think it would be best if you get a broader opinion than just my own. As such, I think it might be in your best interests to put the article up for peer review and I will hold off further copy editing until then. Please feel free to revert any of my changes you don't agree with. Cheers, and have a great day! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep doing it! Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC
Hello AustralianRupert,

Dropping by to tell you that I've nominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC here: Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2. You commented at the MILHIST review, I thought you might be interested in dropping a line there. Cheers, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Battalion (Australia)
The article 32nd Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:32nd Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
The article 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gordon Bennett (general)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gordon Bennett (general) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gordon Bennett (general)
The article Gordon Bennett (general) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gordon Bennett (general) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Paterson Clarence Hughes
Hi Rupert, this article that you recently reviewed at ACR is now at FAC. I'm heading away at the end of the month so if (and only if!) you did want to comment there, it'd be great if I could action any concerns in the coming week or so. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, sure will take a look. I wonder if I could ask a favour in return, though. Would you mind taking a look at my article on the 12th Light Horse that is currently at ACR? I think, it could probably do with a bit of your copy editing magic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, was planning to try and look over some ACRs before I go -- pls ping me if I haven't stopped by by early next week! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, not sure if you have departed yet, but if you haven't would you mind stopping by 12th LHR again and taking another run through? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for ping, will aim to do so at least by tomorrow night... Cheers, 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So sorry mate, last-minute stuff, flew out on 31st and no rainy days since then so only time for this quick note from Prague now... If I'm too late for the 12th I'll definitely owe you one! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ian, hope the trip goes well. Prague sounds nice. I expect it's a bit cooler than Darwin right now... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Frank Wead
My apologies. I overwrote some of your work while I was trying to fix Wead's flimography,-- Jim in Georgia   Contribs   Talk  02:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for your ongoing help. My eyeballs are getting tired. I couldn't even find a decent obit for Wead, let alone a bio. The one bio -- which I can't find on line -- by Beigan(?) is referred to elsewhere as being inaccurate. I'm beginning to think this page belongs to the drama and literature squad.-- Jim in Georgia   Contribs   Talk  00:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Jim, I suspect that there must be something comprehensive out there, but it seems elusive at the moment. Thanks for your efforts, too, the article is greatly improved. It would be great if the original contributor could get involved too, as they might have some better sourcing. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Gresham Cooke
Hi AustralianRupert, just wanted to say many thanks for your help with tidying up the article and huge appreciation for voting with those who wanted to keep it when the "fashionable furniture and sea shells expert" nominated it for deletion. I'm currently doing a series on fighter aces who had great achievements but received little publicity - many due to their less publicized theatres of war (or less glamourous aircraft) and also doing articles on the participants in the Great Escape in 1944. I only got active on Wikipedia this month and it's a steep learning curve. Thanks mate ! Researcher1944 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - second message, I just added a new article and I hope I got the TALK tag right - I copied it. Espelid was a Norwegian flying with the RAF so I wasn't quite sure. Thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries at all. Thanks for your efforts. I've adjusted the talkpage tag slightly and assessed the article. It probably only needs a few more references (at least one at the end of each paragraph), for it to be rated B class. When/or if you would like to have the article reassessed, you can request this, by listing it at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, I've just added some more to Espelid and will try to track down the 2 other sources requested. I don't know how to source the Spitfire Op Training Unit one though, he couldn't have joined a Spit squadron without coming through a Spit OTU. I'll have a dig around the Spitfire website and see what I can find. Many thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

57th/60th Battalion Unit Colour Patch
I have pinched this patch from Commons and rotated to use as the 5th Battalion. Just FYI Unit Colour Patch edits. Enderwigginau (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries, I think this already existed, though (created by someone else): File:5thAIF Patch.svg. Thanks for your efforts on the Unit Colour Patch page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

12th Light Horse
I see some parallel here with the issue of units that has concerned me wrt Buna-Gona. In the Sinai section 15 km. Without physically checking the reference, this comes from a contemporary Australian reference, quoting distances in metric that would have been sourced in imperial. I would be surprised if the original source for this reference did not say: "Dueidar, about 9 mi away" - which has been converted, with an appropriate precision, to 15 km. It is hardly appropriate to say about 9.3 mi. This is very specific.

Significant figures is a detailed discussion but here is a simple explanation (I hope). Consider the casualty radius of a grenade at 30 yds. This might convert to 27 m. I would say that with an appropriate precision, this should be 30 m. Does the extra 3 m mean you are going to be safe? Consider a metric and an imperial soldier reporting a target indication. If they were equally good at judging distance, the same target would be at 200 m and 200 yds. It would be the same for map distances - 900 m or 1000 yds (not 980 yds). BTW, not meaning to tell you how to suck eggs!

Another example in the Palestine section is just this - across a 980 yd (900 m). There are many more examples in the 12 LH article (almost every conversion). Do hope this helps. In Buna-Gona, conversions were done manually with appropriate precision but then (with good intentions), the convert template was added without considering the precision. I have been putting of backtracking these changes. Anyhow, Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, ack, yes, starting to see where you are coming from. I've gone through and checked the examples in 12th LHR, and adjusted where it seemed appropriate. The "sigfig=1" parameter with the "order=flip" parameter (where relevant) seems to do the trick, I think, of maintaining consistency of Imperial or Metric being presented first and then maintaining the level of precision used in the source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Was looking at the article and was going to make some edits along these lines. In the Jordan and Syria section, I came upon the following: "the railway station about 0.9 mi (1.5 km) away." Perry would have given the distance as 1.5 km where his original sources would have given this as 1 mi. I am pretty certain Perry has rounded this to the nearest half km (ie a precision of ± 250 m). I cannot see a way to reconcile this except manually? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the Palestine section "300–500 yd (270–460 m)" should read "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" or perhaps "300–500 yd (300–450 m)". Don't know how this could be done except manually? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, regarding the first example (0.9 mi (1.5 km)): yes, I agree it should probably be 1 mi; but equally I can't work out how to make the template do that. Regarding the second example (300-500 yd), on this one I'm not so sure. The source (Gullett) gives provides 300-500 yd, hence to remain faithful to his level of precision, we should convert with the same precision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At the same precision, based on significant figures, it would be "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" though given 500 yds is more accurately 460 m, it might be better to report this to the nearest 50 yds (50 m) and keeping in mind that the distance (spacing) reported is 400 yds ± 100 yds and these were likely from visual estimates since the variation does not suggest anything more accurate such as pacing. It also occurs to me that the 9 mi (15 km) example earlier is probably the same as the 0.9 mi (1.5 km) just now mentioned as I think they both come from the same author(?) - our fellow has likely reported the original source's 10 mi as 15 km. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the source of the 15 km, that was Hollis, while the 1.5 km figure was Perry, so I think we need to be careful inferring things here. Regardless, I think we need to be very careful not to go too far here lest we get into original research territory (and adding an extra mile on a hunch is probably going a bit far, IMO). Equally, converting 300-500 yds to 300-500 m is also problematic, IMO, as it implies that 1 yd = 1 m, which it doesn't. The point of the conversion here is for the reader who doesn't understand what a yard is. Telling them that it is the same as a metre defeats the purpose of the conversion in the first place, which is to explain that it is roughly the same distance, but not quite. I think the "sigfig=1" parameter should probably really only be used where it is clear that figure is approximate (e.g. the source says "about" or something similar), otherwise I think mainly we should probably just faithfully convert it. In this case, Gullett is specific, so I've chosen to be, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thought they were the same. Should have checked but didn't - my mistake. It was a bit of a side thought as I was putting down the other - hence my question mark. Writing "300–500 yd (300–500 m)" is not problematic. It is not saying that yards and meters are the same. What it is saying is that, to the level of precision of the reported figures, the conversions happen to have the same values. At this precision and for these values, they are essentially the same. It is like the example of the metric and the imperial soldiers or the grenade casualty radius example. Telling a reader that 300 yds is (at this degree of precision) essentially the same as (not substantially different from) 300 m is not defeating the purpose - nor is saying "-40°C (-40°F)"- a coincidence at this level of precision but not and exact coincidence since the conversion involves Repeating decimals. Reporting "300 - 500 yds (270 - 460 m)" implies the converted figures have a precision to the nearest 10 m and infers the measurements in yards have a similar precision (to the nearest 10 yds) and IMO this is misleading. To say, "otherwise I think mainly we should probably just faithfully convert it", implies (to me) that we should be using the 'exact' conversion (or that somehow the conversion templat is perfect) but the conversion template does not report the 'exact' conversion. An exact conversion would be: 300 yd. The template makes certain assumptions about the precision (sig figures) of the value being converted and assumptions of the appropriate number of sig figures to be reported in the conversion. These assumptions are not always going to be right. The range 300 - 500 yds has only 1 sf figure in the value. There is nothing to suggest that any of the following zeros are significant and in the context, they are likely not. the correct application of significant figures is to report only 1 sig figure in the conversions unless there is reasonable reason to assume a greater precision - 300 - 500 yd gives 300 - 500 yd. Another limitation is that it rounds on a decadic basis (power of 10) and does not accommodate rounding on a half-decadic basis - allowing 500 yds to be reported as 450 m. Perhaps, where the limitations of the template do not produce an appropriate outcome, a conversion should be applied manually. IMO, the purpose of a conversion is not to highlight the differences between systems of measurement. Its purpose is to allow the reader to conceptualize (appropriately visualise) the quantity given when they are not familiar with th units of the primary value. To this extent "300–500 yd (300–500 [or 450] m)" is more appropriate than "300 - 500 yds (270 - 460 m)", since it is implied the reader must conceptualize the meaning of the more precise figures in the conversion. While not as 'neat', using the quoted figure as the primary figure allows the reader to make their own inferences about the precision of the converted value. You made an analogous comment about the virtues of consistency at Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona - though in WP, on this issue, I fear it is a lost cause and consistency will likely outweigh any other merits no matter how valid. I mean this as a considered argument but not argumentative. I certainly value your opinion and feedback. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate you sharing your opinion; I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Found these links: Unit conversions and False precision Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

James Catanach
Hi Australian Rupert, I have supplied the sources which you requested on James Catanach. cheers R44Researcher1944 (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great work on this and your other articles, too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

23 Squadron
Hi, 23 Squadron opperated the F-111C "Pig" for a number of years. My father was the executive officer for a number of years. So please leave my changes. Regards, MilitaryHistoryGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryhistoryguru (talk • contribs) 04:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Wikipedia requires content to be verified (the relevant policy is WP:V). That means referenced in reliable sources. Personal opinion, or experience, does not fall in to this category. With all due respect to your father, unless you can find a book, magazine, journal, or a reliable website that states this, then the information should not be included in the article. Beyond this, I'm fairly sure that No. 23 Squadron hasn't had a flying role since the 1960s, so it doesn't seem likely that they flew F-111s. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling better now
Thanks for asking. Damn acid reflux, but I think it's healed up for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, Dan. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Arras
Thanks, it was just a quick drive-by.Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Burke's Rangers
Thanks for the excellent review. It will take a little time to go through but I'll begin making the changes this weekend. Thanks again! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
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) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

American Civil War peer review
Hello again, thank you for the courtesy of a peer review at Peer review/American Civil War/archive4. I've worked with you before at Bombardment of Cherbourg and Siege of Fort Pulaski on the articles I took from stubs, but I've not cracked the code for successful article advancement. I would like to advance a wider narrative in military-related articles to include naval and joint services operations there, and also in my contributions to the American Civil War article, which you have been kind enough to peer review, and which I would like to address.

The principle objection to the ACW article causing a delisting revolved not around citation conventions, but the treatment of slavery as a cause of the conflict. In editing down the related passages by consensus on the Talk page, several references were made extraneous. There now appears in the article code, "The following references appeared in the reflist but were not used in the prior text. Please return them to the reflist once they have been correctly cited in the main article." To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to reimpose those references, nor to re-extend the narrative on Causes.

You kindly referenced two links which I am not sure how to use: "harv errors", and "duplicate link checker tool", both of which promise to be very useful in pinpointing links which should be made current. Do I simply copy-paste the code at the top of the article, then save? Are errors then highlighted in red for me to address by finding working links or deleting the references as links?

The actual expert contributor to this article is Rjensen, a published university professor. Another peer reviewer wondered about the inclusiveness of the historiography section. I would defer to Rjensen for an answer. Although much of the disruption to the article is in the form of anachronistic Lost Cause and modern neo-Confederate interpretation which are not born out in reliable sources...

Another editor noted instances of US instead of U.S., and those six stylistic errors are corrected. I likewise clicked on edit and searched for &ndash and &mdash and found no examples, so I can scan the article for hyphens in the narrative and replace those I find... Oh, btw, in this process, at the very least, is the American Civil War article a B-class article rather than a C-class? A-class does not seem to have the MOS requirements of either GA or FA...is that an easier status for an article to achieve? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, hope you are well. Regarding the scripts, they are actually installed on your "monobook.js" page. You can see mine for an example: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js. If you don't have one, I believe you will need to create one to get them to work. The harvn errors then show in red when you view the article, while you have to click on a link on the left hand Tools toolbar when viewing the article. The link to look for is "Highlight duplicate links". These will only work once you have the scripts saved on your monobook. Regarding the article's assessment, I think it is still C class, unfortunately. While you've done a fantastic job and I don't want to discourage you, there are still a lot of paragraphs that appear to be uncited. I've marked a few just now with "citation needed" tags, but I didn't get them all. Regarding A-class Review, it sits between GA and FA, and its MOS standards are pretty close to FA. I'd suggest taking the American Civil War article to GA first, then ACR. Anyway, I'm not feeling well today, so I will end it there and get some rest. I hope some of what I've said is helpful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope this post finds you feeling better. I added importScript for HarvErrors on my /vector.js page and it produced a “Expand citations” tool. punching that up for ACW produced a large number of errors as advertised, but on adding 15 “|ref=harv" items of coding which I found omitted, and also removing nine citations without references in the narrative, there is hardly a dent in the sea of red. alas and alack. More seek and find is required to figure out how seemingly good footnotes and their book cites do not link. I've spot checked a couple of the internet links, and they seem good, for instance footnote 4 to Chalmers on one statistic for the war dead. --- Ha! when the citation uses two names for authors Smith and Jones, the sfn must read SmithJones. also, years must align between fn and book cite.


 * Another peer reviewer noted inconsistent casualty figures reported, I know it has been the topic of some discussion on the Talk page. Is there a convention for reporting ranges, noting differences in killed and wounded, inclusion of civilians, etc.? Different authorities give different figures.


 * I take your direction for more thorough citation at the end of each paragraph as a constructive idea. It will take some re-reading of sources to try to reconstruct what pages the information was taken from, whether I edited the passages or others did. rats. I am now consistent in documenting every contribution, I wonder how I may have missed it earlier, since I often had the sources either open in my lap or on an open window on my computer. I sometimes wonder if citations are lost in collaborative editing. I guess practice makes improvement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, for casualties, I'd suggest putting the lowest and highest ranges in the infobox, and discussing these in more detail in the body of the article discussing the various estimates (with citations and attribution). Regarding the harv errors, I've tried to fix a few for you. Regarding the citations, I note Richard Jensen's reversion here: . Claiming that the information is well known and therefore doesn't need a citation is not a correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy, nor is it setting the article up for success if you want to take the article to GA or higher. The author might know where the information came from, but the casual reader probably won't, so how do they verify it? They do so with a citation. The correct policy is WP:PROVEIT and the wider WP:V policy. Additionally, the Milhist B-class criteria (see the frequently asked questions here) requires a minimum of a paragraph end citation, so without that, this article will never be anything higher than C-class, IMO. As it appears that not all of the article's editors are happy with my involvement or advice, I will be stepping back from this one and won't be working on this article or reviewing it for the foreseeable future. Good luck with taking the article further and thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, Rjensen relented at . He is a curmudgeonly former lecturer at West Point who generally takes care of questions of scholarship and historiography on the ACW page. I hope you can overlook his initial response. But in any case, thanks for the assist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tom. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A-class -> PR
A question, also for User:Anotherclown: do you think it would be possible to reproduce at PR what we've been doing at A-class? I have a lot of thoughts about this, but the main one is the obvious one: I've been happy to help maintain A-class for years, on the theory that sooner or later new regular reviewers would come along. It hasn't happened, and judging from the lack of response to the current thread at WT:MHC, there's no one around who is interested in stepping in to review every article for a month, much less for a year. PR has some disadvantages, but I believe there may be ways to deal with the disadvantages that we haven't tried yet, and it has three big advantages: it works with partial reviews, it works with less than three reviewers, and (historically) it has drawn in new reviewers from time to time, sometimes from other wikiprojects, who wind up hanging around, unlike A-class. There's arguably a fourth advantage: the lack of any sort of promotion at the end of the process may provide a greater incentive for nominators to move on to GAN or FAC. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday. As a community-wide (rather than project specific process) I think PR can be useful in getting some outside attention on an article and if some mechanism could be devised to encourage its use it might lessen the burden at ACR. On a personal note I sometimes use it for articles which cover a broad topic prior to GA IOT try and reduce gross errors and ensure I haven't missed anything. That said I just can't see an obvious way to divert articles down this path (short of say an OP ed in the Bugle or some other way of communicating directly with editors to suggest it). We would then also have to try and get more reviewers involved at PR to take up that slack. Re your offer, potentially you might need to try and recruit someone from outside the coord ranks as I think your assessment is right about the lack of response there. For me it just doesn't seem achievable to give an undertaking to review every article (and I honestly don't know how you manage that rate of effort). Sorry all that sounds fairly negative I know. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very kind, and probably right. Well, I'm going to stop reviewing and other chores at A-class, and see what happens ... maybe new people will start reviewing, we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, gents, I think Peer Review has many advantages over A-class, most certainly, particularly the lack of a "penalty for failure"; that said, overall I can see a decline in the level of involvement in all review processes, which leads me to believe that in the long term neither may be sustainable in the long term. One thing I've toyed with in my head for a while, is potentially adding either PR or GAN as a pre-requisite for an ACR nomination. This might serve to help link the processes more, and also potentially help to get an outside view on our articles prior to ACR. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No thoughts; I'll support whatever you think will work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The pre-req idea is a fairly simple way of ensuring A class candidate articles have had some sort of quality control before getting to us and seems to me to probably be the mechanism I was groping in the dark for above. I don't hate it, but I wonder how much support it would have with other project members? I imagine a change like this would probably need to RFC or something like that? Although I guess the first step would be floating it among the other co-ords though. Some counters are that we are not currently overwhelmed by ACRs (although the numbers do fluctuate), whilst this would likely just increase the reviewing burden at PR and GAN so there may be some push-back from people involved there and we might just find ourselves having to increase our own reviewing effort there instead... Anotherclown (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think the idea has been muted in a slightly different form before, i.e. a proposal to reduce the number of supports required at ACR for articles that had already successfully undergone a GAN. My proposal is a little different, but could potentially incorporate that also. For instance, make either a PR or GAN (either successful or unsuccessful) a pre-req to nominating...and for those articles that have been successful at GAN, require only two full supports. It would serve to (potentially) speed up the ACR process, which is currently taking up to two to three months now, when I remember a time when it was possible to promote an A-class article in five days. Anyway, I will have to think about it a bit and then maybe raise it on the co-ord page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Gresham Cooke
Hi AustralianRupert, thanks for your help on formatting the photo. Please can you do the same on Philip Hunter (RAF officer), thanks, R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-formatted this now as AR doesn't seem to be active at the moment, hopefully this helped. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks guys, I appreciate the help. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ac. Yeah, sorry I fell asleep pretty early last night. Have been destroyed by work this past month. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please revisit your prior comments from A-class review
Could you please revisit your prior comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States?

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues you already mentioned at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of: I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.
 * 1) WP:NOTGUIDE
 * 2) WP:EDITORIALIZING

Maybe you could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be appreciated if you could look into above, or get someone else from WP:MILHIST to assess your prior analysis and the current state of the article with regards to WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:EDITORIALIZING, please? — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, in hindsight my review of this article wasn't a good idea on my part. I am a PTSD sufferer and to be honest, reviewing this one was harder than I expected. Please accept my apologies, but I think I will have to sit this one out. I wish the editors who are working on this all the best and thank you for taking an interest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, I know a little bit about what that's like. I wish you the best, — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/33rd Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/33rd Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

July to September 2015 Reviewing Award

 * Thanks, Peacemaker! Looks like Ac beat me to awarding yours! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 4th Bombay Grenadiers
An article that you have been involved in editing—4th Bombay Grenadiers —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Hamish59 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

General Johnson

 * (Multiple edits, so I can't just thank.) Lineagegeek (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Lineagegeek. Hope you are having a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Coast Guard Squadron One
I've always thought an extra set of eyes on the problem were just what was needed. Thanks for your help in spotting things that I have gone over at least a dozen times. And I thought it was ready for prime time...silly me! Cheers, mate... Cuprum17 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks Rupert
Thanks for doing those Rupert. Adamdaley (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quitting...
AustralianRupert,

With what has been going on since yesterday (27th October, 2015) with PeaceMaker67 (and others) and today (28th October, 2015) on my talkpage. I have decided to finish the current article I am working on and then quitting Wikipedia. I'll then focus my all my time on my website that I registered earlier this year. Adamdaley (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've appreciate what you've done for me throughout the time we've known each other on Wikipedia. Hope things work out better than what things have worked out for me on here. All the best for the future, online and offline. Adamdaley (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, the decision to quit Wikipedia is one that we all need to make one day. I have mulled over it for many years, in fact, and will one day do so, too. The truth is that there are aspects of Wikipedia that are great and others that can be quite stressful. I have been living with PTSD for many years and to be honest there have been moments online that have gotten to me (perhaps more than I should have let them). Anyway, I wish you all the best for the future and thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Chief of Staff of the French Air Force Article
Should this article be in the biography section? Chief of Staff of the French Air Force. Adamdaley (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Adam, just looking at some similar articles (such as Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and Chief of Naval Staff (Pakistan)) I'd say possibly not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Divisional Cavalry Regiment
There are several images that would be suitable for the article available from the Alexander Turnbull Library in NZ, but they need permissions. Would those qualify for fair use?--Kges1901 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I believe that if the photos/images were taken in 1944 or before, then under NZ law they would be in the public domain. You could upload them to Wikimedia Commons under the Template:PD-New Zealand licence. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nikolay Voronov
What improvements should I make to raise the article for a GA nomination? Kges1901 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd suggest the following (not an exhaustive list, but might help):
 * expand the lead a little more;
 * translate the foreign language titles for the sources (some appear to be have been done, but not all, e.g refs 2 and 3);
 * include page numbers for the citations for the books used;
 * the dates of rank section could possibly include all officer ranks attained;
 * potentially offset one of the images to reduce the amount of whitespace in the article;
 * add a fair use rationale to the description page of "File:Dyatlenko.jpg" explaining why it is acceptable to use it in the Voronov article;
 * add US licences and English descriptions to the image description pages (on Commons) of "File:Nikishоv Voronov Zhukov.jpg", "File:NNVoronov1932.jpg" and "File:NNVoronov1940.jpg" (already has an English description, but still needs a US licence in addition to the Russian one);
 * check for capitalization inconsistencies, for instance "promoted to Marshal of the Artillery" v. "promoted to chief marshal of the artillery";
 * make sure your date formats are consistent (for instance the date of rank section seems to use a different system to the majority of the article);
 * list the article at peer review for another set of eyes to take a look and then when the peer review is done, list it at WP:GAN;
 * Anyway, I hope this helps. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

New Guinea Force
Hi AustralianRupert, having a look at the New Guinea Force page atm, so it'll be ugly for a little while as I load it up with info. If you get a chance to have a quick look now and then it would be appreciated. Feel free to just leave pointers and I'll do my best to adjust rather than just making changes yourself - I'll never learn otherwise hehehe Enderwigginau (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries, I've watchlisted the article and will take a look. Thanks for your efforts! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Australian Army brigades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saijo, Hiroshima. 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) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Cheers, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

what to do with it ?
Hi AR,

I've written this article RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II over the last few weeks to the best of my current ability, I don't know if its ready for peer review or whatever - I'm a newbie and still don't understand the various classes of articles or review system, I'd appreciate any guidance, thoughts or advice on what needs doing with it, I'm not even sure about the title which is configured based on the fact that the aircrew flew for RAF Bomber Command to match with an article of that title in Wikipedia - but I feel it should better reflect the diversity of the origins of the chaps themselves ???? thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, overall, I think you've created a really good article. There are still several areas that need citations, though, so it couldn't really be assessed as anything higher than C class, although if you added these in it would probably be B-class in my opinion. I would definitely suggest putting the article up for peer review, and then depending upon how that goes, maybe WP:GAN. In relation to the title, I have also been wondering about that. I'm not really sure, but I think it might work better as Aircrew of RAF Bomber Command during World War II or something similar. I wouldn't make any changes straight away, though, probably a question to ask at peer review so you can see what other people think also, and then make an informed decision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AR,  I will get onto the remaining citations/source refs. Your advice is appreciated. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel Article
,

Would like your input to the ongoing talks about what should be in and what should not be in the article of Rudolf Abel article. As Trekphiler has already taken out roughly 4,000 to 5,000 bytes of the article which he finds questionable that should be in other articles. Of course you can see on my page here User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 2 I am doing Reino Häyhänen, Rudolf Abel's assistant which should have been done a while ago, but is still being done. I'll reply to Trekphiler in the next few hours on the article talkpage of Rudolf Abel. Would you be kind enough to have your input on the talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * – Would you be able to request that the Rudolf Abel page be page protected due to vandalism and reverted? I tried last month to get the paged protected but failed. I would be appreciated if it could be done. Adamdaley (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day Adam, looking at the page history I'm not seeing a lot of vandalism per se. I see quite a few edits that are not necessarily optimal (and probably need to be refactored in some regard), but beyond that I think it would be difficult to make an argument that the page should be protected. I'm not an admin, though, so let's ask a couple: thoughts, gentlemen? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's a reason to protect the article: this is a content dispute which is being politely discussed on the article's talk page, and hasn't involved any edit warring, etc. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a justifiable reason to invoke page protection...yet. It is true that this is a content dispute, but there are two veteran editors working on the content dispute, and more importantly working on it civilly. I'd take a wait and see approach for now, particularly since invoking page protection here would require the page be shut off from everyone but administrators to edit. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't add much to the above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your inquiry about the A class review on Coast Guard Squadron One
I'm kind of bummed out if the truth be known. First of all, I want to make it very clear to you that I appreciate all the help you have given me in the past. I can think of very few individuals on Wikipedia that have given me more encouragement than yourself. You are a class-act. I told myself when I removed the content from the A class review that I was done with Wikipedia and especially the Military History Project... However, you reached out and more or less jerked me out of my funk. I really enjoy the editing that I do on articles relating to military history, but I don't enjoy the frustrations of the review process. I was told when the subject article finished its GA review (by Zawed, if memory serves) that it was ready for ACR. Apparently it wasn't; dozens of changes had to be made by you, others, and myself to shape the article up to the expected criteria. I guess I was kind of disappointed that it wasn't a better effort. I appreciate your edits and suggestions to make it a better article and the same thing goes for Anotherclown. He was the other A class reviewer. I understand each and every reason I was asked to make a change...and agree that for the most part the changes made helped make it a better, more encyclopedic article. I am disappointed by the image reviewer, I attempted to answer the concerns made, but didn't receive any response, even after a ping. Finally, the lack of a third review is kind of a slap in the face. The article sat untouched for two weeks by anyone except for one individual who wanted someone else to offer up an opinion before they would. That is real encouraging for someone who is submitting their first ACR. If the Project is to survive, the members of that project must encourage each other and mentor the beginner. I have been on Wikipedia for over eight years and thought I was comfortable with most aspects of the Military History Project outside of the ACR. With the ACR, I am a total noob, and I guess I figured that if I needed help with the image problem that someone would step up and point me in the right direction. It was also my understanding that the whole process of the ACR was to be completed before 28 days or the ACR was a fail.

I don't know what to do. I put a lot of effort in the article over the course of two years and I really wanted it to be an A class article. I know that some can develop an article through A class in less than a month or so, but I only have so much time to devote to Wikipedia. What do you advise? If you think that someone will eventually come forth with another review, I suppose I would like to see the process through. I don't know if I will ever take another article much farther than B class in the future, but I would like to see this one article as an A class article not for myself, but for the 3,000 Coast Guardsmen that served in the unit in Vietnam; it is probably the closest to a unit history that will ever be written that the general public would ever see.

I need some guidance, mate. What say you? Thank you for your past support and friendship. Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, mate, thanks for the kind words. ACR timings are...flexible these days due to lack of reviewers (and I think also a shift in our thought processes about the need for a cut off date). I had one recently that took about six days, and one that took six weeks. This one: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/3rd Battalion (Australia) - well, I thought it was good to go after GA, but turns out it needed considerable work. But in the end it got there due to many people pitching in. That was a really important article to me (my grandfather served in that unit during World War II) so I was really glad to see it promoted. I'd love to see your article be promoted. I think it would be a fantastic addition to our showcase. I'm hopeful that if you left it up a while longer that a third reviewer will come around. A couple of our co-ords might be able to offer some tips on the review page, too.: Gents, are any of you able to offer Cuprum a review on his article (which is his first attempt at A-class)?. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Iwane Matsui
Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Bzuk, all the best! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Cheers, John, I hope you all have a safe and happy festive season. Congrats on the second little one! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2015

 * Let me be the first to add my congrats! Well done, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well deserved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations on a well earned award. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this! auntieruth (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * +1000! Congrats! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone, it's been great working with such dedicated editors this past year. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

History of the Great War
User:Keith-264/sandbox5 I'm reworking material that I added a few years ago and being better-versed in Wikipolicy, fear that much of the section "Edmonds" after the third paragraph will have to go as it's OR by yours truly (as is much of the following Travers and Green sections). Could you suggest an editor who specialises in POV matters to look at it please. (I had hoped that I could relate it to something in print by now but even Green and Sheffield make the same mistake as Edmonds about Gough, Haig and 31 July.) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, Keith, sorry not sure about who might specialize in POV matters, but there is a noticeboard where you might be able to post your query: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll give it a try.Keith-264 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! Your help to this Newbie has been greatly appreciated. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, hope you have a wonderful Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Merry Chrismas! Thanks for your kind encouragement and assistance during the past year. May the coming year be an easy one for you and yours, mate...

...and congrats on the The Golden Wiki... Cuprum17 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it has been great working with you. All the best for the New Year. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/17th Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/17th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lingzhi. All the best to you too. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers, Nick. For some reason it gave me the motivation I needed to get writing while watching the cricket. Hope you have a safe and enjoyable Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A question
I'm not that sure whether to ask the question at the the project's talkpage, the help page, or here. I'm just wondering if you should merge redirect talkpage said to their actual pages or keep the project tag. This has been causing problems with the lack of task forces. An example of this would be here. Also have a Happy New Year and congrats on winning the Golden Wiki! Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks. In the past I have usually just redirected them, although I think that was before "redirect" was accepted by the Milhist template. I'd probably just redirect it, anyway, as it seems a reasonable course of action. All the best for the New Year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Improving stubs
Hi Rupert, I've been building some articles from biog stubs, should I adjust any part of their TALK pages or the footers on the articles after I've finished ? I have sometimes done one or the other but I'm not sure what it the right thing to do ? Thanks for any advice. Best wishes for the New Year. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, in my opinion, it is okay to remove stub tags from the footers of articles you have worked on, although it is probably best to request assessment/talk page updates over at WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rupert, I've watched the batch of assessments which they've done done on the articles I've built from stubs and reckon I'll have a go myself now, I think that my latest one John Ward (RAF officer) is maybe a B or otherwise a C. Can you have a quick look for me. Thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've had a look and made a few tweaks. Please check you are happy with those changes. Overall, I'd say it is close to B class, but technically would be Start class as it needs a couple more refs (I've marked where I think they are needed), and it needs more coverage about the subject's post war life, i.e. how long did he stay in the RAF? Did he marry/have children? etc. Just a word of caution, also. For some of the biographies you are writing, there may be differences of opinion as to the notability of the subjects. In the past, I have seen several similar type articles nominated for deletion (see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive and WP:SOLDIER). So long as they receive significant coverage in third party sources, you should be okay, but just be mindful of this as sometime in the future you may have one of these articles nominated for deletion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks AR, I'll get on with the required sources. I hadn't stopped to consider notability because I was only building on existing stubs presuming that they had already been accepted. I shall think a little now. Thanks for the advice. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, due to the nature of Wikipedia an article is never really "accepted", and can in fact be nominated for deletion due to lack of notability years after its creation. I've even seen some featured articles nominated. I'd just hate to see you put in a significant effort improving something and then have it deleted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken that onboard big style AR, no point me putting lots of effort into something which may be gone anytime. Regards R44Researcher1944 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AustralianRupert!


Happy New Year! AustralianRupert, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks, Liz, Happy New Year to you, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cup image
G'day Rupert, I have left a message asking Noclador to have a look at the cup idea, but haven't had a response yet. It is a pretty quiet time of the year, so it might be a while, even if he's happy to help out. We should probably do the due diligence and find out how many points Pb got across the year. He'd figure in nearly every Bugle, so I might start there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, PM, I haven't awarded it yet, just drafted the Bugle entry, so I will wait for you to provide the tally for 2015 to confirm the result. We will just have to make sure it is tallied before the January Bugle goes out; we can adjust the totals then. If the image gets worked on, the template will just update automatically, so long as the original file is just updated, rather than a new one being created. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pb only missed one month (April), and took out at least half of the monthly contests, so I think we can safely award it to him. He totalled 592! points in the year. Do you want the number of articles as well? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, if it's not too much trouble, that would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 101 articles... I doubt anyone else is going to win this annual title soon, but... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Thanks for your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2/14th Battalion (Australia)
Hello, Australian Rupert -- I'm glad you added that note explaining the "2/" at the beginning of 2/14th Battalion (Australia). I was wondering what that meant. However, reading the note, I didn't know what the Militias were. Can you link that to an article that would explain the term? Corinne (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I mean, I know what they mean, generally, but does the term as you used it refer to something in particular? Corinne (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Corinne, it was the name of the part-time Army at the time (today's Army Reserve), which had different conditions of service/obligations to the 2nd AIF units. I've added a link to it now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Now, maybe I'll read that article. Now, you may think that I'm nitpicking, but I've got to ask you about this phrase: "corresponding numerical designations". Were they really corresponding numerical designations? I mean one-to-one correspondence between the two forces? If so, fine, but if not, perhaps the word "similar" would be more accurate. It is, of course, entirely up to you and what's correct. Just thought I'd ask. Corinne (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, again, interesting question. Not sure really what would be better. For each 2nd AIF infantry battalion, there was also a Militia infantry battalion either on the order or battle, or in "suspended animation", e.g 1st Battalion (Australia) and 2/1st Battalion (Australia); 2nd Battalion (Australia) and 2/2nd Battalion (Australia), all the way up to and including 33rd Battalion (Australia) and 2/33rd Battalion (Australia), before it skipped a few and went to 43rd Battalion (Australia) and 2/43rd Battalion (Australia), and then 48th Battalion (Australia) and 2/48th Battalion (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your gracious reply. I think there is enough correspondence between the two forces to justify using the word "corresponding", don't you? I would leave it as it is. Corinne (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your interest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews

 * Cheers, Jason and Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mount Tambu
Hi mate. The following might help with a stub for this one. From Maitland, The Second World War and its Australian Army Battle Honours, pp. 72-74:
 * {PAGE 72}: Pushing on after the capture of Mubo, the task given to the 17th Brigade was to destroy the enemy in the Komiatum-Mt Tambu area. The 2/5th Battalion attacked on 16 July 1943 and captured the first two of the four knolls that dominated the southern approach to Mt Tambu. The Japanese counter-attacked eight times during the night, and the Australian had only five rounds of ammunition per man remaining when they received a resupply. Other enemy attacks-one with a ten-to-one strength superiority-were repulsed during both day and night and, by 19 July, Japanese casualties were at least 350 compared with the 2/5th's 14 killed and 25 wounded.
 * A problem with Mt Tambu was that the final knoll had to be reached by crossing a ravine. Notwithstanding this, the 2/5th mounted a major attack on 24 July. A group led by Corporal John Smith actually gained the summit but, depleted by severe casualties, the Australians were forced off. Smith suffered forty wounds-from which he died.
 * The 58/59th was still trying to capture Old Vickers and, on 28 July 1943, it launched yet another attack. This time it was preceded by careful reconnaissance and fire from mortars and artillery which achieved direct hits. It was successful and Old Vickers was finally taken. The 2/7th Battalion then took over the position which, during the following week, it held against many determined counter-attacks. The days that followed were hard ones for the 17th Brigade, as its continual harassment of the enemy led to many sharp clashes.
 * In all this time the 24th Battalion had been very active in carrying out its security and diversionary roles. The measure of the battalion's success was the size of the force that the enemy was obliged to commit against it.
 * Unable to oust the Japanese on Mt Tambu, the strategy was developed of overcoming them by cutting their supply route-the Komiatum Track. Tasks were allocated to all units in the area, but the main one-of capturing the south end of Komiatum Ridge-was given to the 2/6th Battalion, which carried {END PAGE 72}
 * {PAGE 73 IS A FULL PAGE PHOTOGRAPH}
 * {PAGE 74}: out the attack succesffuly on 16 August.
 * The Japanese reacted quickly and strongly, but came under substantial and accurate fire form the 2/5th's Machine-Gun Platoon, and from the 42nd Battalion-which had joined the 17th Brigade and been positioned on Davidson Ridge. With that significant assistance, the 2/6th repelled every attack-and there were seven of them.
 * By this time, the Japanese on Mt Tambu were being progressively encircled and, realizing the unavoidable outcome, they slipped away after darkness fell on 18 August 1943. The natives summed up the outcome:
 * {QUOTE}: Japan man he all gone pinish. Japan man he run away.
 * The Japanese position were found, in many instances, to be ten feet underground with a complete system of tunnels and connecting trenches. At least a full battalion, with virtually perfect organization underground, had occupied the position, and artillery and mortar fire had done little damage to it.
 * And so ended the months of hard fighting which came to be called 'The Battle of the Ridges'. Anotherclown (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info, mate, I've created the article now. If you are keen, it could still certainly be expanded a bit, particularly if you have the Bradley work. Unfortunately, I only get preview view through Google Books. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, a few points from Bradley To Salamaua I think are relevant:
 * Initial Japanese defenders from II/66th Battalion p. 212 (which was commanded by Major Sakai Sugiyama p. 80.)
 * "The Japanese command was determined to hold Mount Tambu and, on 19 July, Kimura’s III/66th Battalion moved into the front line." p. 219 (this is LTCOL Fukuzo Kimura)
 * US involvement (which isn't currently mentioned in the article). Four days after 24 July attack the Australians moved out of the front line on Mt Tambu p. 224 (At least several companies from US I/162nd Bn approx. 400 men took over the front line) although Australian forces remained in the area (D Company, 2/5th Bn holding a firm base on the mountain and AS mortars working with US mortars in support and AS stretcher bearers). An attack by a C Company, US I/162nd on 30 July uphill against strong Japanese positions failed after which Moten realised Mount Tambu could be taken frontally and endeavoured to find a way around. (Bradley pp. 226-230)
 * Bradley gives a strength of "743 enemy troops in the Tambu-Goodview-Komiatum area, mainly from the 66th Regiment" just prior to the 30 July attack (p. 225) however this is after reinforcement by III/66th Bn I mentioned earlier (as such I wonder if where you have currently included this in the narrative works from a chronological point of view).
 * I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/5th Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/5th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"5th Australian Regiment"
Hi mate, just improving page for Thomas White, one of the original Australian Flying Corps trainees and operational pilots. His ADB page says he served in the "5th Australian Regiment" in 1911. I'd like to link it but at a bit of a loss as to just which 5th Regiment it might be given I understood we had such numbers for infantry, light horse, artillery, and so on. His full service record is not digitised and the only clue I've spotted at the NAA is at the top of page 83 here, where it says he was 2LT in what looks like "5th AIR", which I guess could be 5th Australian Infantry Regiment if that's a valid abbreviation... Any thoughts/clues? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a 5th Australian Infantry Battalion on the ORBAT as part the pre-1912 Commonwealth Military Forces (after which compulsory training was implemented and there was a significant reorganisation). The 5th AIR was part of the 2nd Infantry Brigade (Victoria) according to Kuring Redcoats to Cams p. 39. This period is not really covered very well on Wikipedia at the moment and we do not seem to have an article that could be linked to directly. According to Festberg The Lineage of the Australian Army, p. 63 the Militia 6th Battalion carried on the lineage of the 5th AIR through a complex list of predecessors but it might be a stretch wikilinking it to that. I've long planned to do something to cover the post Federation Australian Army but never really got around to it. That said given the limited coverage I'd say many of the units would probably not be notable individually so it might only require a single article which includes a list of the units that existed (but that is a job for another day). Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, gents, yes I've been thinking about how to tackle this for a while. A list would seemingly be the best solution, I think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks guys, if there's nothing really appropriate to pipe it to right now then I'm happy to leave it as text unless you think a red link is more appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/5th Battalion (Australia)
The article 2/5th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2/5th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Landing at Lae
I had for some years intended to expand the Landing at Lae, but am not much good with battles. I was wondering whether you would be interested in collaborating on it in a similar manner to the Battle of Milne Bay, with me writing the sections on strategy, operations and logistics, and you filling in the muddy boots stuff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes, I'd be keen to work on that article. I will probably have to order a few books through the work library, which can sometimes take a while to get up to Darwin. But I will look to get cracking over the next couple of weeks. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Div cav possible GA
Are there any other improvements that need to be made to the Divisional Cavalry Regiment article? If not, I will list it at WP:GAN. Kges1901 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work with this article. I have a few suggestions that you might consider. I will post them on the talk page of the article for you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2/17th Battalion (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Desert. 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) 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Dumpu
Okay, I think the Battle of Dumpu is is reasonable shape now. It was not much of a "battle" - more of a long walk in the tall grass. But it might give readers a better idea of what it was like than a higher-level article. See what you think. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Hawkeye, I think you've done a great job. I made a couple of minor tweaks, but overall it looks pretty good to me. Much better than what I've achieved this weekend, most certainly! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 Milhist article writing contest

 * Thanks, Sturm. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 * No worries, I'd certainly be happy to do so again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
No worries, thanks for volunteering for this kind of work. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Landing at Lae
Every now and then you find an article that is, well kinda weird. Such is Merian C. Cooper. Hope the work on Landing at Lae meets your approval. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Hawkeye, most certainly. Great work on the Landing at Lae article...I see what you mean about Cooper. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

XVI Army (Japan)
Hi AustralianRupert. I just changed the redirect on XVI Army (Japan) to Sixteenth Army (Japan) and created XVII Army (Japan) with a redirect to Seventeenth Army (Japan) to reflect your intent. (Pesky Roman Numerals) Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are keen, there are plenty of red links at Landing at Nassau Bay. I'm (slowly) working on referencing and expanding that article as part of a recent attempt to bring all the Salamaua-Lae campaign articles up to B class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Will make an concerted effort on Monday 15 January 2016. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks, Peacemaker, and to all who helped along the way. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Battles that aren't battles
Western Desert Campaign some new articles have appeared and some titles have been changed. Am I right in assuming that they can be called battles because RS have it so? I fear that the term is being used indiscriminately. Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh and when several countries on one side are listed in the infobox, is it alphabetical or by preponderance?Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote Ralph Wiggam, "what's a battle?"...whilst Ralph might have said so out of ignorance, he hits on a key point, I believe. Not every military engagement is called "Battle of Place X..." in reliable sources, but if not then what do we call said event if we are writing an article about it? WP:MILMOS provides some guidance, which essentially says use the common name, but if a common name doesn't exist, use "Battle of Place X" as terms like attack, raid, massacre etc can have non neutral connotations. Re the infobox, I would list alphabetically as it seems more neutral, but I think some people argue that "key" belligerents should be listed first over "minor" belligerents...but this then requires judgement calls, which is potentially problematic. Not sure if this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, since Wiki-ambiguity on both matters appears to be what exists. I just wanted to check with someone who knows what he's talking about. There's a British report for Great War nomenclature but as far as I know, not one for the 2nd WW. Someone put UK at the top of a list of participants in a Desert War article and I feared that if that was Wiki, I'd have a lot of amendments to make on GW articles, that I've done alphabetically. I prefer alphabetical as it avoids assuming that quantity is the same as preponderance. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I however prefer by numbers rather than alphabetical - it is by and large a tested measure on wiki in many articles & has never really proved a problem not in my case. You say 'potentially problematic', indeed - imagine the uproar if we were to change the World War II infobox in that method. Preponderance should not be an issue on wiki that takes place in forums & should stay there. Shire Lord (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Like anything flag related, I'd suggest maintaining the status quo in any article, regardless of what approach is used, unless there is consensus to change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - if it is an issue of certain subject then with a consensus I would be happy to oblige. As for naming battles I assume a number of citations can support the naming of a battle. Some battles are named in reports/dairies etc as an 'affair' but it would sound odd for modern day Wikipedia. Shire Lord (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there is an official British report for on nomenclature for the Second World War too. As with the First World War, it has a hierarchy of "campaigns", "battles", "actions" and "engagements". Like the First World War, our articles do not adhere closely to to the official nomenclature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually they do.Keith-264 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Landing at Scarlet Beach
I have completed the work on the Landing at Scarlet Beach. What an effort. Please take a look over it. It covers everything up to the capture of Finschhafen on 2 October, which is the way that the sources and Dexter are organised. The Battle of Finschhafen can then cover from there to the Battle of Sattelberg in November. I suppose base development can be put there too; it started in October, although it really didn't get going until November. A major problem writing the article was that Dexter is the main secondary source, and he isn't as reliable as one would wish. I had to correct a couple of mistakes he made. Barnstars for anyone spotting these. We need to carefully check the Huon Peninsula campaign article to make sure that it agrees with Landing at Lae and Landing at Scarlet Beach. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day Hawkeye, you've done a great job with the Scarlet Beach article, IMO. Much better than I could have done. My only suggestion is that at ACR you would probably be asked to add an Aftermath section. Anyway, I've had a go at the Battle of Finschhafen article, but it's probably not much chop really (not sure if I've covered the correct dates here..seems I might have covered some of what you have also in Landing at Scarlet Beach). Anyway, will try to keep working on it. I have a couple of books on order from the library also which might help, but I doubt they will arrive for another week or so. Would like to add an Allied strength figure if possible... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign
There have been several new articles including Battle of Mersa Matruh but I fear that the writers are making work for themselves. My assistance has been rejected so I wonder if you might cast a discreet eye over the articles, with a view to making the writers aware of wikipol etc on form and content?Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've chipped in with a comment and an offer to help out on the Mersa Matruh talkpage. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Z, my attempt turned into a comedy of errors.Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Landing at Lae
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landing at Lae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Landing at Lae
The article Landing at Lae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landing at Lae for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Landing at Lae
— Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
The article 2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Wareo
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Wareo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Wareo
The article Battle of Wareo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Wareo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Fake editors
Is there a place to report possible editors faking their identity? I saw this earlier. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The usual place is Sockpuppet investigations Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually my query is about using an alias rather than more than one account, so I don't think it applies. Thanks anyway. Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't look closely at the link so I won't claim to understand the issue, however could this be something for the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? Or is this an issue involving impersonation (see the inappropriate username section of Username policy)? Just a word of caution though to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia's rules about posting personal information about editors though (see WP:OUTING) as depending on what course of action you are contemplating you would probably need to tread fairly carefully so as not to accidently transgress these rules and unintentionally get yourself into a spot of bother. I don't have any experience in this area so I'm just guessing about this though. Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You might want to ask Tryptofish for advice. – Corinne (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I read the linked article that led to the opening question here. And I'll say that there are a few "tells" in it that make me skeptical of what the article says (and which I will not describe here). The basic allegation is that an editor either was a real-life person with an ax to grind on Wikipedia, or was a "meatpuppet" of that person. So it is neither a sockpuppet issue nor a username issue, but it could arguably have been a COI one. To the extent that there were concerns about the editor in question editing pages about the real person, then that would indeed be a reasonable thing to raise at WP:COIN. And the caution about the outing policy would be very important in that regard. Otherwise, there is nothing objectionable about an editor disguising their real identity (perhaps even as a fish!). --Tryptofish (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people think I'm really that rotter Keith-263 ;O)) I wondered if there was the possibility of bringing Wiki into disrepute but I think I'll wait and see. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lunch in Australia
This week's article for improvement is Lunch. At present, the section Lunch consists of one paragraph, all on lunch in Australia. I made a few copy-edits to improve the prose, but I think it still needs a lot of work and some citations. I asked Sminthopsis84 if s/he could add to, or fix, the section; s/he replied that the section was pretty inaccurate as it stood. See User talk:Sminthopsis84. If you have time, could you look at the section in the article and make any changes you think need to be made and add any citations you can find? Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Corinne, unfortunately I'm one of those humans who rarely gets away for lunch, so I probably don't know enough to be of much help. I'm lucky if I get time to eat an apple. Thankfully, one of my colleagues usually makes me a brew (tea or coffee), too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

platoon numbering in Australian inf battalions during Papuan Campaign
Reading Brune and McAuley on Kokoda. Thought you might be able to clarify the platoon numbering used. They appear to start at 7 (1st Pl A Coy) by 3 platoons per rifle Coy through to D Coy. E Coy is the MG Coy of 3 platoons? (not 4?). Also, 6 specialist platoons (mortars etc) in HQ Coy, Support Coy (services?) and BHQ.

Can you pls confirm or correct. Also, which are the first 6 platoons?

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I believe the first six platoons would have been those specialist platoons in HQ Coy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reginald Miles
Hi mate, noticed you've been copyediting here -- I was about to claim for GAN review but will hold off if you had your eye on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, please feel free to take the review as I have a pretty full-on week at work coming up, so I probably won't get time to review in the short term. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thanks, Tom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Article review
Hi, thank you for your critiques and helpful suggestions on the Paul Hausser article. Would you mind doing the same on the HIAG article? I plan to nominate it for peer review, so your input ahead of time would be greatly appreciated. The article is long, so you could just take a section, such as "Unit histories" or "Successes and outcomes". Hope this may fit into your schedule. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have a very busy week at work and probably won't get online again until next Saturday night, or so. But I will try to take a quick look today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wide Bay
Hi. If you're interested in expand Battle of Wide Bay article -I've created it in Spanish WP- I've found some information which may be useful. Regards,

--Macesito (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Tsimba Ridge
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Tsimba Ridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Ratsua
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Ratsua you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Pearl Ridge
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Pearl Ridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
Thanks for your review for the good article nomination of International Fleet Review 2016. You have notified me that it is put on hold some improvements and have granted me the 7 days time to do the same. But I request an extension of 3 days to the 7 days i.e the total become 10 days as I am having my exams going on this week. KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  14:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries, that's fine. Good luck with your exams. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have done made the necessary modifications as fas as possible. Review it and if there are any to be made, let me know. KC Velaga   ☚╣✉╠☛  08:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Tsimba Ridge
The article Battle of Tsimba Ridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Tsimba Ridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews

 * Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Ratsua
The article Battle of Ratsua you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Ratsua for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Pearl Ridge
The article Battle of Pearl Ridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Pearl Ridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

 * No worries, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Cecil E. Harris Assessment
Hey Rupert! Than you so much for taking a look at the page. I am very new to editing and appreciate any insight you can give me. You added citation needed tags to a number of areas on the page, including to claims addressed earlier in the article and cited, e.g. the cn added to the 'Awards and Decorations' area which is supported by citation 15 in the biographical sketch that comprises most of the article. I even added an area to the Talk page with citations mentioning discrepancies in the available history concerning the full award of medals. I'd be happy to edit the article according to MILHIST standards, I think I just need further guidance about what improvements there are to be made and how best to format the page. I appreciate any insight you can offer and also the time you spent improving my article. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts so far. My main suggestions for the article would be to expand the Post War section a little more to discuss what Harris did between retirement and his death. You also should mention the date of his death in this section and, if known, what he died of. If he had any children with his wife, you could mention them there, too, but obviously all this should be referenced. Beyond that, the lead could be expanded just a little more to summarise the whole of the subject's career, and citations should be added where I've added the "cn" tags, even if these are just duplicates of previous citations (e.g. see WP:NAMEDREFS for guidance on how to do this, equally I added an example of a namedref to the Awards area). If you could do all of this, I think your article would be well on the way to being a decent addition to the encyclopedia. Incidentally, frankly I'm a bit surprised that you had to work so hard to prove the notability of Harris. As a high-scoring ace, I'd have thought he would be almost certainly notable. Anyway, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Tom Leigh (RAF officer)
Hi Rupert I was delighted to get the award last year but stopped adding new articles some months back after getting fed up with editors who lacked specialist knowledge messing with articles unnecessarily making pointless changes (in my view). I wonder if you could help on the "Tom Leigh (RAF officer)" article in my series on the "Great Escapers", I nipped into Wiki to check my watchlist and can see that somebody for some reason best known to themselves has gone into this one of the 40+ in the series and decided to remove the nationality flags which are common to the entire series, I'd continued this concept introduced by whoever had contributed the first one or two before I got going. Thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, good to hear from you again. Unfortunately flag icons seem to polarize people and there has been many a discussion about these. I personally don't use them anymore, but I wouldn't remove them if they were on an article before I got there. Anyway, I've had a quick look at the article and made a few tweaks (not sure how beneficial they are, though). Anyway, if you can add a couple more refs where I have marked with the "citation needed" tags, I believe the article would be up to B-class standards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So does that mean that some of the articles will still have the flags and others wont, depending on who decides to chop and change them around ? I'd worked hard to standardize the format across the 40+ articles. I don't understand how the personal preference of one person should be allowed like this, surely its either acceptable in Wiki terms to have the flags or not. Given that these men fought and died under their flags why should they be unacceptable now. Political correctness is one thing but this must be taking it to the limit. I'll dig out the 2 citations you have requested Rupert but I think that's it for me, I'm done here. There needs to be some control here over folks being allowed to do silly stuff just because it suits them at the time, the concept of Wikipedia is wonderful and I shall continue to support it financially but to have people on the loose who make no real contribution in terms of adding knowledge and information but they think they do well by just chopping and removing stuff other people have worked to provide seems odd to me. Best of luck, regards R44.Researcher1944 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, R44, I'm sorry you are feeling that way. The main policy here is, I believe MOS:ICON. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to maintain uniformity of style across all of the articles as the policy itself is ambiguous, and often interpreted differently by different editors. I can understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the day, for me it is the content of the article that is most important, rather than its appearance. I too have served my country, and have buried friends under my country's flag; it is very important to me in the right context, but on Wikipedia, not so much, so long as the information that is written is as accurate as it can be based off what is said in reliable sources. While you may not agree with some of the edits people make to some of the articles you have been working on, please remember that like you, they are also here to contribute to building an encyclopedia and (most likely) believe that their edits are in the best interests of the project. Please assume good faith on their part, but also remember you also have the right of reply. If someone makes an edit you don't agree with, you can do a couple of things: (1) nothing, (2) let the edit stand, but contact the editor and discuss to determine consensus, or (3) revert and discuss. All of these are valid approaches in certain circumstances. If you discuss your concerns, you might find that they agree with you, or you might find that you hold a minority opinion. It happens like that sometimes. After all, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is the strength of Wikipedia, and it is also, in my opinion, its fundamental weakness. That's why I have written several works offline and had them published professionally. Anyway, good luck with taking Tom Leigh's article further. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Kanalkampf
Kanalkampf Do you mind looking in here to quell an incipient edit war please?
 * Thanks, I've done my bit and will leave the article alone.Keith-264 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Slater's Knoll
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Slater's Knoll you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Slater's Knoll
The article Battle of Slater's Knoll you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Slater's Knoll for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion
Thanks for your help on this page. It still needs work, but I think the fact that there is no article on this, considering how much has been written on it, is an indicator as to how Australian events are sometimes scantly addressed on Wikipedia, compared to US and Uk and other countries. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries, I will try to help out if I can. I'm probably limited to just copy editing and formatting etc, though, as it's been years since I examined the topic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ehhmm...for some bizarre and possibly slightly political reason, an editor has nominated this for AfD - you may want to take a look! Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC) I think the other Keep nominator and I agree, not only should this be kept, more the question why this info wasn't on Wikipedia a while ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Australian_Involvement_in_the_East_Timor_Invasion
 * G'day, I don't believe Nick's nomination is politically motivated as he is an editor who I greatly respect. Sometimes people have differences of opinion, that's all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
Would you mind reviewing this Featured article candidates/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive2?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

International Fleet Review 2016
I have previously nominated the article International Fleet Review 2016 for good article nomination two times. But it failed to pass. You have suggested to request a copy edit from GOCE and I have done so. The request is completed by User:Miniapolis. So I hereby request you to check the article article once again and want to know whether I can re-nominate it. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  05:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, it has certainly been improved considerably, but at this stage I wouldn't advise that course of action, although you are, of course, welcome to nominate for GA any time you wish. Many of my comments on the GA review page have not been dealt with, though. For instance, there are still "citation needed" tags in the article. Additionally, I think the article has too many images, and the coverage is still not sufficient enough. A number of the sections are very short, implying that there is either more that can be said, or that the section should just be rolled into another section. Additionally, the lead contains information that is not included in the body of the article. Finally, I think you could possibly include information about how the event was viewed within the media. For instance, was it viewed favourably, or unfavourably? What was discussed at the press conference on 5 February? Anyway, these are just some suggestions. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers, I do enjoy a nice cold beer! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Eingreif
I was just about to paste it in and managed to convince myself that I'd done it without noticing....;O))Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries then! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal
My oppose vote doesn't mean that I don't think you'll do a great job, you already do from what I can see and I hope you continue to do so, no matter how any user decides to stick their flag in the ground. Unfortuntely the community as a whole doesn't seem to be aware of that concept and an army, of admittedly only those wishing you well, stepping in to argue your corner isn't a good way to start off with the mop, hence my decision. Hopefully our paths will cross on an article somewhere where we can collaborate in better times - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, you are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for taking the time to share it and for having the moral courage to do so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks, it certainly looks tasty. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And to be shared: two forks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
I see your up at rfa for adminship. I want you to know that you have my full support, however as a result of my overzealousness some months back I sued for peace with two frequent RFA participants, and the terms of the peace (as I choose to interpret them) prohibit me from doing anything overt on the rfa pages. I just wanted to let you here that I think you will be a wonderful admin, and I wish you the best in your rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, Tom. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

SPARS for GAN
Thanks for helping an old guy out, again. I hope things in your part of he world are good. Regards! Pendright (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A pleasure as always. Good luck with taking the article through GAN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Moxy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done with the answers and congratulations on the eventual passing of RFA
AustralianRupert, well done with the answers. I ran into you the first time when I had nominated my article for FA (the first first class cricket match in Australia; I will be pinging you about that again soon). So it was quite pleasant to see you answering my queries absolutely on the dot with much maturity. Will be good to see you as an administrator. Well done again! Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I look forward to seeing how your article develops. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on your RfA!
It's snowing right now (in your favor). Congrats on your RfA! PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 04:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I wish it were snowing where I live. It's boiling hot here right now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's scorching hot here in Florida, USA right now. I thought it was winter in Aussie? Again, congrats. You will be a great admin. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 16:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes it's winter here. But in the north of Australia essentially that just means it rains less, so thankfully the humidity is less, but the temperature is still over 30 C. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful RfA
Please let me know if you have any questions. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's official!
Congrats on your successful RFA, Rupert! I stand by my admonishment to please not let your content creation efforts suffer but, regardless, the mop couldn't have gone to a nicer and more conscientious guy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian, I'm most certainly keen to continue content work. I've gotten on a bit of a roll with the Bougainville campaign articles of late, so I'm hoping to get a few through A-class in the next month or so (Tsimba Ridge, Porton and Hongorai River) and then maybe a couple more through GAN (Bougainville counterattack and Talasea). If all that works out, I have grand plans to one day rework the Battle of the Nek article, but it would be great to have a couple of people to work with on those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great -- I might leave the WWII ones to you and AC/Nick/Hawkeye, but feel free to keep me in mind for the Nek when you get round to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're on. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Successful RfA

 * Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU  ( ✉ ) 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Captain Raju. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Rupert! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you always had been. Congratulations, nice T-shirt by the way. Keith-264 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Also, welcome to the suck. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I appreciate the words of encouragement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your adminship! Kges1901 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running and congratulations on your successful RfA, the strong community support you received, and for surviving the snake pit that can be RfA. In addition to admin activities you plan on performing, please continue your fine content-based work as well. Thanks for your contributions to improve the encyclopedia. North America1000 08:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! -- samtar talk or stalk 09:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just chipping in with my congrats as well! Zawed (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've done it! Best wishes! Now get busy and administer something! Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even after all these years, you keep surprising me with all the things you're good at. I hope you took in the good things people said about you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Well done!  --joe deckertalk 16:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome! And remember, rule #1: "There is no cabal". HighInBC 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I am sure you will use the tools well and help the project even more than you already have. Donner60 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the party, but congratulations Rupert. I'm super happy that you passed with such flying colors. Well deserved. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am late as well; belated congrats. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You're an admin! Have a kitten!

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 

welcome to the mop corps

 * Thanks, Katie, that made me smile! :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. 5 is the one that stands out to me. You will spend more time than you expect explaining your decisions to editors who are convinced you made an egregious error. But congratulations to you, you obviously have the trust of the community with an RfA that was a landslide! Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats and commiserations, Rupert! One thing about running for admin is that you find out if the community trusts you. Never any doubt about that! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Flagrant racism section"
Well, congratulations then! <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit reverts
Hi Rupert. A couple of days ago you helped out with IP editor 49.182.82.105 who was removing sourced content. The same thing is happening again here. I'd be grateful if you could take a look. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Prince Romerson
Hello, looking for some advice. I want to get Prince Romerson eventually to GA status and also A-Class status as well. Sometimes, I could wait for a month or so before someone decides to do a GA review. Can I nominate it for A-Class while the GA status is still out or should I wait? Also since J. R. Kealoha is still in limbo, I don't know if there is any rule to not nominating more than one A-Class review. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Kavebear, there is no official limit on how many A-class reviews an editor can submit, but you need to be careful not to flood the process. Currently we are experiencing a lull in the number of reviewers we have, so the system is taking a lot longer to complete. Regarding nominating for A-class before GA, yes this can be done. The only rule is that you shouldn't nominate an article for both at the same time. Given that you have already nommed Romerson for GAN, I would advise waiting to nom for ACR until after the GAN is completed. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment
Hi, would you mind checking the GAR page? Good_article_reassessment/Hyazinth_Graf_Strachwitz/1. I tried to add sub-sections because it was quite long, but I'm not sure if this is the right approach, or not. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/15th Battalion (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2/15th Battalion (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with deleting
I want some some suggestion regarding the deletion of some articles. Please see the page Vir Chakra. It is about the India's third highest wartime gallantry award. In the list of recipients I am able to observe articles of many personnel who are at notable as per WP:SOLDIER. Some of them don't even have adequate references as well. These include officers (mostly below colonel or equivalent level) and junior and non commissioned officers whose pages may be deleted. What should I do? Is there any way to propose/nominate for deletion multiple articles at a time or should I nominate them individually. Please suggest me a solution regarding this. Thank You. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  10:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, WP:MULTIAFD provides the steps necessary to nominate multiple articles at AfD. I suggest caution, though, as each article should be judged on its own merits, and sometimes commenters are a bit put off by multi article AfDs. To be honest, I've actually never nominated an article for AfD, so my knowledge of the process is, to be honest, still evolving. I suggest waiting a little while, though, to see how consensus pans out for the other articles that are currently at AfD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * for the suggestion KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  12:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bengal Regiment
I have recently put in place a merger proposal regarding Bengal Regiment, an article you have contributed to. Apart from myself, you appear to be the only other contributor to this article who is currently active on Wikipedia. If you have time, could you please take a look at my proposal to merge this article with Bengal Native Infantry on its talk page here and add your opinion about the merger?

Thanks Exemplo347 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)
The article 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2/15th Battalion (Australia)
The article 2/15th Battalion (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2/15th Battalion (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with footnotes: List of National Defence Academy alumni
I have recently created an article: List of National Defence Academy alumni. I need your help regarding the footnotes of this article. In the Maha Vir Chakra and Ashok Chakra sections I have mentioned notes at the end of the tables regarding the military ranks and arrangement of the officers. The note is same for both the sections, so I want to use the same note for both instead of two as it is now. Please resolve this. And Can I propose the article for DYK? KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  03:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think I've fixed the issue. Not sure about DYK, though, as I haven't been involved there for many years. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * for that. Can you please tell me what have did you do to fix that, so that I can do it in future based on requirement. KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  12:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, WP:REFGROUP gives a good outline of how to fix these issues. Essentially you just have to make sure your note is part of a named group and a named ref. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join the WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history
I invite you to join the Indian military history group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  12:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Darwin meet-up and public workshops
Hi,

Two public workshops will be hosted at the Northern Territory Library which will be held on 22 June 2016, 5.15pm and 26 June 2016, 2pm. There is also a meetup which will be held at 6pm on 25 June 2016. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Antony Golec
Please protect Antony Golec due to persistent vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3139:F738:D2F9:2EFD (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have protected the article for one week after which it will automatically be unprotected. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Desertion
Knowing that you either are currently or recently have been a soldier in the Australian Army, I would like to clear up some confusion in the article Desertion and I believe that you could help. They are very unclear statements made in the first paragraph here. One sentence states that the term for AWOL (Absence Without Leave) (U.S. Army terminology) in the Australian Defence Forces is Absent Without Leave (AWL). Is this correct? The way the information in the first sentence reads it is somewhat confusing. I am considering a rewrite of the first section of the article to clarify various terms used in various armed services in the several countries that use the term AWOL or variations. A cite would be helpful from Australian sources if you could find one. Periodically discussion ensues on the talk page of the article about what format is correct for a particular situation (with resultant edits to the main article, right or wrong) and if I can find correct sources for cites perhaps that would help the matter. Thank you Rupert for your forbearance. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, mate, yes still serving. I've always called it AWOL, but can't recall what acronym the Discipline Law Manual uses. Interestingly (or not really) I had to charge someone with the offence just last week. In most cases, it is not really as big a deal as many make out (i.e. it is usually not intentional, it is usually not because someone doesn't want to deploy, and it usually only for a very short period of time, e.g. a day due to a missed flight, etc). Here are a few online refs:  This one is probably the best one:  (see p. 24), although it is from the 1970s. A more up to date source is the Transitions Handbook: . Anyway, hope that helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Culture-traditions-and-heraldry-task-force=yes
Information please on why this is being added to a number of talk pages. Thank you. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday, it is one of a number of new MILHIST task forces that have recently been raised to co-ordinate work in this area, pls see here WikiProject Military history/Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force. The other new ones are: Military science, technology, and theory and Military logistics and medicine. The relevant discussion is here. Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anotherclown. Is this an opportunity to modernise the VC and MofH articles? One of the differences between the VC and the MofH is that it is correct to describe the VC as the 'highest award' and the MofH as the 'highest military award'. I would prefer the VC opening paragraph to be
 * The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest award of the United Kingdom honours system. It is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces. It was previously awarded to Commonwealth countries, most of which have established their own honours systems and no longer recommend British honours. It may be awarded to a person of any military rank in any service and to civilians under military command although no civilian has received the award since 1879. Since the first awards were personally presented by Queen Victoria in 1856 two thirds of all awards have been personally presented by the British monarch. The investiture is usually held at Buckingham Palace.
 * The MofH information on presentations by US presidents represents the current situation for living recipients but not the historic development. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Anthony, if you'd like to change the wording of those two articles, I think posting your proposal on their talk pages is the best way to go. You could then post a request for discussion on the main Milhist talk page, which might (hopefully) generate some consensus. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I will do it paragraph by paragraph and see what reaction I get. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested KC holder RFC
Hi, thank you for the comment on the AfD discussion: I think this raises an important question for the Milhist Project, though, so overall I would suggest we hold off on further nominations of these types of articles until an RFC can be held to discuss what level of the Knight's Cross is considered to be the "highest" award.

I agree that an RfC would be a good idea. What form would you envision it taking? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, something along the lines of what is outlined here would be sufficient: Requests for comment. The question should be framed neutrally, but should be specific to enable the discussion to stay on topic. There are probably a few options for the location of the discussion: the main Milhist talk page, the Biography project talkpage, or the WP:MILMOS/N page (note it doesn't have a talk page, so it would need to be a subpage, I believe). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the issue is not the grade of the KC, but that many of the subjects of the articles, similar to those that I have nominated, lack notability. WP:Soldier states that "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." So the notability guide is already worded appropriately, as it appears. Getting a higher grade of a KC is not a guarantee of notability either.

It appears that many of the articles were created by a user "Jim Sweeney" who is no longer active. Please see for example:
 * Hans Weiss, 2008,
 * Herman Lang, 2008 and
 * Georg Schoenberger, 2008.

Please note that the citations used in these initial articles were all non-RS and highly dubious (i.e. waffen-ss.no, frontjkemper, etc), and these articles should not have been created or approved in the first place. In the intervening 8 years the notability of their subjects has not been established either, as the AfDs demonstrated. So the question is -- what to do with the mass of similar articles that cover non-notable subjects? If you could share your thoughts on this, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm not really convinced that they all lack notability, but nevertheless your options are: (1) leave them be, (2) propose them for deletion, either as a group, or individually, or (3) potentially just redirect the ones that lack significant coverage to the relevant list. I'd argue that the third option is probably the best one, but potentially this is a question you could ask a broader group of editors. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Military of Mycenaean Greece
Thanks for your time with the review of this one.Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your efforts with improving the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)