User talk:Jim Sweeney/Archive 2

Thomas Cubitt
Thanks for the review! I think that must be the quickest GA review I've seen yet... Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome there was very little wrong, just a few small changes that I made.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ælfwald of East Anglia
On behalf of Ælfwald, many thanks. Hel-hama (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba
Jim, what are your concerns over this article? I'm seeing a lot of reverting going on and I'm concerned about criteria 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there all very minor, just trying to get the correct historical names for the military units added. As it stands at present some use WWII designations, or are just wrong. Its part of a clean up attempt by me and Anotherclown have been attempting to complete. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe
Hi Jim, thanks for reviewing this article. I think that I've now responded to all your comments and suggestions. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ian Fleming‎
Hi Jim, Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've addressed all your points and (I hope) cleared them all. There are two which I have not done anything about yet as I've got a suggestion or two for how to proceed and would appreciate your input before I undertake the edits. Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, Changes now made - I've left the books section as is for the moment, and given a suggested replacement - let me know which one you prefer: I think I just about like the new one more! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, That's great - many thanks indeed for the review and the pass! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Werner Hartenstein
I made the changes you proposed and left some questions for you as well. Please have a look once you have time. Thanks for reviewing MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Light horse articles
I just want to say thanks for creating all those articles. You've expanded our coverage in that area significantly. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I enjoyed the break from British airborne articles. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversion rate
Hi, where did you get the old money conversion rates/totals for the 18th C. British soldier article? I was flicking through my copy of Holmes "Redcoat" earlier hoping to find and cite something in terms of modern value, but gave up. Are these conversions by a modern equivalent or for a certain date.. i.e. 2s 8d (14 pence) – 14p by what standard.. 2011 or 1800? As I think it might be worth noting something in the article if it accounts for any inflation, etc, though I expect not at these low totals, just to make readers more clear as to where the pence values come from, so not to appear as OR. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 14:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are the conversion rates from old into new money, no allowance for inflation. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I double-checked your maths, as I notice you corrected a couple afterwards. Based on the table at Decimalisation all seem correct now. With such a complicated range of denominations and names in old money, I don't know how they managed.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 12:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem and its always good to check my maths. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Backlog
Hey Jim. Would it possible for you to close some Good Topic nominations to lower the backlog? GamerPro64 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you or GP could close the X-Files, 1906 Atl, and C+D ones, that would be awesome. I'm closing the Japan one now, and once those four are dealt with we are done for the year, as none of the others have consensus just yet. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier
Just like to say well done on the article and really appreciate all your hard work mate. Its looking great. &mdash; Woe90i Woe90i 19:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'm trying to clean it up, see if we can get it to B Class, if not GA. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks - great idea as well. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Operation Bulbasket
I see that you deleted a reference and link to a tribute page to one of the survivors of this operation. I wonder whether information of this sort might be used in a "Survivors" section, giving the names of the few who got away. There were eight survivors of the attack, as well as three others who had been away cutting communications lines at the time. What do you think? --TraceyR (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:MEMORIAL we don't do that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

 * Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Infantry brigades
Hi Jim; hope you're having a good start to the new year. I had a couple of thoughts which I wanted to run by you. When our British infantry division articles are short, without much material beyond a list of component units, I was wondering whether it's actually strictly necessary to create brigade articles if we have not much more than a list of units. Maybe we could consider not creating the brigade articles until there's actually something substantive to say about the brigade's history and operations itself ? Secondly, I noticed you were removing Category:Infantry brigades of the British Army from some brigades. My thought was that if the brigade has participated in the First World War and Korea, as the 29th did, the main category should not be removed; only if it *only* participated in the Second World War should the main cat be removed. Would appreciate your ideas on these two points; look forward to discussing. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes its in the WWI and WWII cats which are sub cats of Category:Infantry brigades of the British Army that's why I removed them. Never thought of Korea. Redirecting the brigades to the division could work, but some especially away from the western front fought notable brigade actions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we misunderstood each other. Sorry if this seems blunt, but please *do not* create new brigade articles where there's simply only a list of battalions and they served with the same division throughout the war. This adds *no* value. All one does is load the servers. The division articles can go to 36kB of text alone (with pics and maps etc on top of that) before the brigade articles need to be even considered. Much more context is given with the division article giving guidance - otherwise people simply have to click through to the division article to learn what that brigade did. Please, if you've got lots of data on individual brigade actions and history, create them, but please avoid doing so when it's only a list of battalions that mirrors the division article ! Do you see what I mean? Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry they are all notable albeit start or stub class, where is the policy that states we do not create article for them. At present its a project i'm working on. Todays stub is tomorrows FA.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing their lack of notability in the least. I am just very annoyed that these articles sit there for five years without a single improvement, sometimes, and then I redirect them(!) Please, reconsider! I'll give you all the help I can with any specific brigade, but when there's no more than a bland list of battalions sourced from the Long Long Trail it seems pointless to just create extra pages for little reason when the division articles cover all them and more! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * Thanks I enjoyed the drive. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

template dispute
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, Battle of Jaffa (1917)". Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GTC closures
Hey. Could you close a couple of the older GTCs this week? I'm swamped on my end and can't contribute much besides some AWB fixes. I'll do a run-through this weekend but would prefer that it's not a huge amount to do. Haven't seen you close much so you especially I'd like to see get more active there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok three promoted Faryl Smith is still there waiting for the results of the FA. The next four in the list I will try and get to tomorrow. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jim, why did you delete the nominations after you promoted them instead of putting them in the log? GamerPro64  20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean? Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean you deleted the nom instead of saving it doing it like Featured topic candidates/Karlsruhe class cruisers/archive1. As well, you were also supposed to put the nominations here after promotion. GamerPro64  20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah I see just a mistake. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed now Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:MILHIST
Hey Jim. I think you might have rv'd a bit enthusiatically here... :) EyeSerene talk 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looks like Fnlayson's fixed it. Best, EyeSerene talk 22:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank tried to self revert as well. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, it happens to us all (well, it has to me anyway!) EyeSerene talk 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

NInja vs. Special forces: fight!
After a few months of quiet, the IP-hopping ninja has returned to Special forces. Thrills! I'm working on a detailed Talk page response (to be completed, uh, sometime); not that it will mean anything to the anon, but may be helpful to any other editors who stop by. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

MARS tankers
Hi Jim, regarding "nothing in any press release about armament" and the CIWS, it isn't explicitly mentioned, but all the images show the ships with Phalanx. What's WPs policy in this situation? Are we allowed to use a photo/image as a source to include information, or does it actually have to be written word? Cheers, Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  11:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is from BMT and is of another smaller class of ship just used for illustration purposes. Its early yet and more info will no doubt come out in the future, but we can only use what's known for certain. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for clarification. I know that the original BMT design was for a smaller ship, knowing the way things tend to happen in the UK, they might not be fitted with Phalanx until some time later, although there should be some spares floating around with the T42s coming out of service. Even now only one of the Wave class has CIWS however. I guess we'll have to wait and see as you suggest. Happy editing. Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  11:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wilfried richter 3ss.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wilfried richter 3ss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
An article that you have been involved in editing, Webster's Brewery has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier starboard.png
 Thanks for uploading File:HMS Quen Elizabeth class carrier starboard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier
Hi. I agreed with your presumed intention in making this edit. You also (I imagine unintentionally) undid my edits to remove unsourced and badly-written content and to align date formats in the references and the main body of the article. If this was an error as I suspect, could I cordially ask you to be more careful the next time? On the understanding that you didn't intend this aspect of your edit I have restored the edits I made. I hope that's ok with you. Cheers. --John (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

File:25pzgra.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:25pzgra.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:25pzgra.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:25pzgra.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

British Isles
I came across your user page when looking through a number of articles. I not that on your user page you list countries that you have visited. The first mentioned is the British Isles. As I am sure you are aware, the British Isles are not a country, rather two sovereign states and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann. Listing the actual countries would be appreciated, thank you Tribunicia (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming
Hi Jim, Back in December last year you oversaw the GA process for the Ian Fleming article. Just to let you know that this has undergone further development since then and is now undergoing an FA review. - Thanks for all your help getting it up to GA last year—and fingers crossed for the FA! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nazareth (1918)
Hi, you may not be aware but a guild member is copyediting this article at the moment, so I wonder if you wouldn't mind saving your copyedits until the guild member has completed their work? Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to worry the guild copyedit has been completed. --Rskp (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue-water navy
Hello, I would like your input at the Blue-water navy article. It appears that once again a list of limited blue-water navies has found its way back into the article. As per previous consensus it should be removed. Cheers. TalkWoe90i 10:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:103 Motorised Division Piacenza.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:103 Motorised Division Piacenza.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Otto Liman von Sanders
Hi, nice to hear from you. Yes, I am all well. I am still struggling with the Knight's Cross and its recipients most of the time. Regarding Otto Liman von Sanders, I believe the correct variant would be "Liman von Sanders". I also checked the German Wiki and they also use Liman von Sanders. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, you've got mail. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

British cavalry during the First World War
Great work with this article Jim - I really enjoyed reading it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)W
 * Yes it is a carefully researched, good quality article that fills a real gap. There is of course a detailed article on horses in WWI but this appears designed to focus on the much-abused animals themselves rather than the military roles they performed. Separate articles on the various national cavalries (French, Russian, Austro-Hungarian etc) may be warranted. Buistr (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

8th Mounted Brigade
Thankyou for writing a potted history of the brigade in addition to the list of units. Would you mind please doing one other thing when you create brigade articles? Please place them not just in Category:Military units and formations of the British Army in World War I or suchlike, but in the correct subcategory, in this case Category:Brigades of the British Army in the First World War, or better still, if there are over three brigades going to be in the category, create the sub sub cat, 'Mounted brigades of the British Army in World War X' etc. Otherwise somebody has to come along later and shift all the brigade articles to the brigade category, divs to the div category, etc. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes see Category:Mounted Brigades of the British Army Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If there are over three Mounted Brigades which served during the First World War, we would also need 'Cat:Mounted Brigades of the British Army in the First World War' to make sure it is nested in the First World War category. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There would not be many pure WWI brigades most of them I have redirected to the 3rd and 4th Mounted Divisions as they never served overseas. As the brigades only existed from 1908 to 1917, and 1908 to 1914 as a reserve force, is it worth making the distinction? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Cavalry VC list
Looks good, I removed "Fincastle" as it was a duplicate of Viscount Fincastle. You might want to look at the sorting of the names. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for British cavalry during the First World War
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

102nd (Tyneside Scottish) Brigade,
Double checking this is meant to have a comma on the end of the title - your comment on the move about it being the correct title seemed very emphatic, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of this naming convention. Can you assist ? - TB (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No sorry its a typo. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta. All fixed now. - TB (talk)

15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade
Hi Jim,

I saw you created this earlier in the year - if you're thinking of expanding it at some point, you might be interested to know that the BL has just put up a digitised copy of the brigade history. Andrew Gray (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks will have a read. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - we'll have a set of British unit histories appearing at some point in the next few months, and I'll let the project know when they do, but the sight of a WWI Indian unit history was unusual enough I thought I'd point it out to someone who'd be interested! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome! That's the only unit history in the India Office records, I think, but a later tranche from the collection will hopefully involve a large number of British unit histories (mostly divisional, I think). I'll put up an announcement once they're up and available :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Corps of Colonial Marines
Hello, I've been making edits to the aforementioned article for a while. The structure did need an overhaul, and there were number of citations which were needed. Given the number of changes which had taken place since the initial review, I made a request for a further review, as it seemed to comply with B Class.

On 19 November, I did set up a header in Talk:Corps_of_Colonial_Marines for suggested improvements, and this is barren. On 21 November, I see you added a Lead tag, suggesting this be discussed on the talk page, and the comment "tags added NOT ready fpr a GA review".

Please can you give some further guidance. From what I can see, an intro of about 4 paragraphs is needed on the general subject of former slaves recruited during two time periods and in two geographic regions. Up to now, the focus has been on the two sub articles themselves. I am keen to elicit responses from several persons, with regard to where the existing article could be improved. I have no experience in this area. Thanks, Keith H99 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Some food for thought. Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim, thanks for having taken the time to give me some pointers. I have one further question.


 * I do not understand the "citation needed" requirement which you have added with regard to geographial deployment on the Atlantic & Gulf coasts respectively. Were this an article about the BEF in 1914, I would not see a need to mention that the BEF saw combat in France and Belgium, given that subsequent chunks of the article should make it apparent (i.e. that Le Cateau is not in Togo and Antwerp is not in the midwest of the USA), and that the chunks themselves would contain a substantial number of citations to show that the BEF was at battles, and the locations of these battles are by definition in France and in Belgium.
 * Is this because it is at the end of a paragraph? Keith H99 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that They served as part of the British forces on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States during that war. needs a cite or rewrite to incorporate into the proceeding paragraph I'm afraid. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again Jim, thank you for providing timely feedback. I am keen to get as full an understanding as possible of the rationale that must be followed.
 * The message I am getting is 'The statement..needs a cite or rewrite'. In a nutshell, if there are subsequent citation in the article which provide proof that the Corps were at various locations - on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts - why is a cite needed? I am trying to get a crystal-clear understanding of the reason why, and I am not grasping it. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If a citation is before the statement that's fine but if the citation is later in the text then there is a problem as it needs to be cited at first mention. Using ref name is the best way of doing that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I still feel it is overkill. However, that is simply my opinion. I have asked you for some guidance on the "Wiki way" of doing things, which you have been good enough to provide, and I have a better understanding of this specific approach. Thanks for the pointers given so far. Keith H99 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade
Hi Jim, I'm beginning the copy-edit of the above article that you requested at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my editis if I'm doing something I shouldn't Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the task. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've tweaked the layout and added alt text to the images. I'm now done, please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as always impressed by Guild copy-editors improvments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a note. The source seemed to have lost the weblink on the second page; hopefully now it's reinstated it should be a bit clearere. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Coup De Main not Deadstick
Hi, Jim

Please refer to Appendix G on this page. 'Deadstick' was the codename for the training.

Best

Marve001 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's for Operation Tonga and the site is not class a reliable for Wikipedia. Deadstick is cited to reliable works. Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is a copy of WO 171/1234 1 Wing Glider Pilot Regiment.

'The Pegasus Diaries', John Howard & Penny Bates, p. 86: The overall military exercise for the rehearsal of D-Day was to become known as Operation DEADSTICK

Best

Marve001 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Marve001, please take this discussion to Talk:Operation Deadstick where you can hopefully describe to us how you reconcile John and Penny's diaries with the contents of Operation Deadstick. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army in World War II
Hi Jim, As you're the main editor of British Army during the Second World War your views on the A class nomination for Australian Army in World War II would be much appreciated if you have the time to give it a looking over. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Jim. In case you haven't noticed yet, you've just accidently changed Constantine's review to 'support' rather than your own ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * HA does that give you three then ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Military Forces
Please be accurate when editing NZ land force units. The New Zealand Military Forces was NZ's 'Army' throughout the Second World War, not becoming the NZ Army until after the war. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mounted Brigades
Jim, I am working on the various Mounted Brigades at the moment (e.g. 2nd South Western Mounted Brigade). I hope I am not stepping on your toes. Hamish59 (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation of 1st Reconnaissance Squadron article
I've reverted your move of this article and opened a discussion, prior to adding a Disambiguation to this, as this is a potentially controversial move. Your comments are both welcome and desired. Please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Kieffer philippe.jpg
 * File:CommandoBadgeNr10A.jpg
 * File:F prendergast.jpg
 * File:Medical trolly.jpg

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo&#39;s Little Bot (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Kieffer philippe.jpg
 * File:CommandoBadgeNr10A.jpg
 * File:F prendergast.jpg
 * File:Medical trolly.jpg

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Kieffer philippe.jpg
 * File:CommandoBadgeNr10A.jpg
 * File:F prendergast.jpg
 * File:Medical trolly.jpg

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 1894–95 World Championship for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1894–95 World Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1894–95 World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign
Gday Jim. There is currently a bit of a drive going on to improve this article and we would welcome help from experienced editors. If you are interested there is a list of outstanding tasks here and a list of missing citations here. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

British cavalry during the First World War
Jim, I recently made two changes to British cavalry during the First World War and you have reverted both in one hit. Firstly, is there any reason not to link to the articles on the RHA Brigades (my first change)?

Secondly, if I understand your reason for reverting, "CITED INFO CHANGED ?" I assume that Edmunds 1925, p.379 (Edmunds, J.E. (1925). History of the Great War: Military Operations, France and Belgium 1914. History of the Great War. Volume II.) states that the 3rd Cavalry Division was supported by XV Brigade RHA. Indeed it was, in 1914 (and early 1915).

At the outbreak of WWI, the British Army formed two XV Brigades, RHA: (1) formed 1 October 1914 for 3rd Cavalry Division, renamed IV Brigade in April 1915. Ref: ''Becke, Major A.F. (1935). Order of Battle of Divisions Part 1. The Regular British Divisions. p21 or Frederick, J.B.M. (1984). Lineage Book of British Land Forces 1660-1978. p447'' (2) formed January 1915 for 29th Division. Ref: Becke (1935) p121 or Frederick (1984) p443

I have stated this in XV Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery, but I have not yet written IV Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery.

I propose reverting your revert, then citing IV Brigade with Becke. Please let me know what you think. Hamish59 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Kieffer philippe.jpg
 * File:CommandoBadgeNr10A.jpg
 * File:F prendergast.jpg
 * File:Medical trolly.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nuzzle
Hi, You created a redirect from Nuzzle to Gaza Strip. We think that almost certainly the reference is to the town Nazla. If you can confirm that, please correct the links. Regards. Zerotalk 00:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Stalemate in Southern Palestine
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey
I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.

I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.

If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you have time to consider my request? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle meetup
Hi Jim, please forgive the unsolicited spam. I'm hoping to establish a regular Wikipedia meetup in Newcastle, the first of which is to be held on 15 September, and I hoped you might be interested. If you can make it, please do sign up on Meta, and if you can't make this one but would be interested in future Newcastle meetups, please add your name to the "apologies" section so we know there's interest. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Post-Nominal Template
You asked me why I eliminated categories from Robert Peverell Hichens.

Using GBR-cats instead of GBR, Global Categories are added based on the post-nominal index applied to the template. This happens even when you delete same category from the subject page.

Review the Post-nominal template and the review the line that starts with DSO. On the Robert Peverell Hichens page, the post-nominal DSO is replaced with  DSO  and attaches this category Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order to the page. You still need to leave categories specific to the subject however global categories can be managed off of the GBR-cats data schema.

I'll revert your undo but just check the bottom of the subject page and you'll see both Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order and Bar and Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom) present even though both categories are missing from the page source. It's the post-nominal template that adds the global categories for everyone who has a DSO and are using the GBR-cats schema. (GBR is still necessary for pages where you don't want to add global categories, these pages are usually listings and tables).

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse)
Gday Jim. Just wondering if the title of this article is right per policy. Specifically should it just be Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse) (without the "The")? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Must say I have never considered it before but according to the National Archives it was Central India etc without the THE Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For your reference
Please see the List of conflicts in North Africa regarding adding the Anglo Egyptian Darfur Expedition. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

MILHIST coordinator nominations closes shortly
Gday Jim. Have you considered putting your name forward for this? I certainly think you have a lot of experience in the project and would be more than capable of doing the job. We currently only have 10 nominations and they close today so if you are interested pls have a look here: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday to you, thanks for the thought but I am not very active these days. Saying that I have been over the last 3/4 weeks. Will give it some consideration.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hill 60
Thanks for taking a look, I didn't check the existing material enough.Keith-264 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added a note to H60 re: bombers. Thanks for the scrutiny, it's been most helpful; lately I've been relying on B class requests to get a copy edit; the Great War pages aren't as popular as I'd expected when I started.Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The note works well, its looking good.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ziza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question
I'm attempting to find a solution to what has apparently been a long term editorial disagreement between you and rskp, and at the moment I am interested in hearing whether or not you would be willing to work with me at Administrators'_noticeboard to attempt to find some middle ground upon which the two of you can bury the hatchet such as it were and move past the disputes. I realize that this in neither your fault entirely nor is it rskp's fault entirely, and I am asking for the sake of peace among yourselves and for the sake of the other editors and the articles in question would you be willing to work with me to find a solution that the two of you can work with? I've not seen you post in a few days, so I expect that you'll have something to say about what has happened and why you have done what you've done, and I also expect you'll have an opinion on whether you want to work with me or leave the whole bloody thing to someone else and be done with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Commented there.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

GAH Beatty
Jim, I can add a bit about his service in the Khyber Pass. His major achievement was as commander of 6 Brigade 2 Division at the end of the Third Afghan war - the destruction of Yar Muhammed's fort at Chora. What was unusual was that the war was officially over by this time (September 1919) but it seems the British were determined to deal with someone they considered more of a bandit than a formal adversary. Beatty led a force from his brigade and with RAF support destroyed the fort in a 2 day operation over 17/18 September. It is mentioned in the Official History where the action is justified "Yar Mohammed still remained to be dealt with, and although the operations against his fort at Chora took place after peace was signed they can be fittingly included in this book, as they were undertaken as a punishment for his acts of hostility during the campaign" Official History p79. The action is also covered in Brian Robson's Crisis on the Frontier pp89-91. NtheP (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute closed
An arbitration case about the behaviour of with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Archived discussion

Purple Heart


Merry Christmas, too. Hope yours is going well. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment

 * I've placed this one on hold because the request already seems to have been fulfilled by Folklore1; see my comments on his/her talk page here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I was under the impression it had been done?Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mark it as done. Folklore1 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked the history and talk pages and saw it had been done. I've now archived the request and removed the template above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

arbcom matters
While I'm here... thank you for your persistence (and that of other milhist folks) in bringing arbcom howitzers to bear on the behavioural issues affecting some World War I topics. I see the issues are ongoing to some extent, with the first WP:AE filing now looking likely to be closed with no further action other than a reminder. Don't be too eager to engage with the other party's edits in an attempt to "win" this. I know from my own experience of similar situations, that it's best to just sit back and wait, because once an editor starts down that path, as Isoroku Yamamoto warned his superiors right from the start... it's only a matter of time. In other words, it will get dealt with eventually; probably without you needing to do anything at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I had hoped to take that article to GA but think that would be impossible and am considering dropping it. Shame as some hard word was put in by the copy editor.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Missed this one, a very belated thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment copyedit
Hi Jim! I've completed the copyedit of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment (a large part already done by AustralianRupert).

One outstanding item that I'm not sure how to resolve. In the section "First combat", your original version refers to "... in the attack on Anzac". I've changed this to "... in the attack on the Anzacs", which is the usage I'm more familiar with. That might perhaps be too colloquial though? Either way, because of the history of the regiment being part of a division initially, rather than the ANZAC corps, this is actually the very first mention of Anzac(s) in the whole article. Thus it lacks some context for any reader unfamiliar with what an Anzac is or what ANZAC was. Can this be expanded somewhere to make it clearer?

On a related note, beside this section there's also an image caption that mentions ANZAC - perhaps this can usefully be wikilinked?

It's good to be working with you again after such a long break. I'm hoping to start a copyedit of the Wellington regiment over the next day or two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks good to see you back.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the clarifying wikilinks... I think this one is ready for GA now so go ahead whenever you're ready.


 * To mark the New Zealand theme, we had a white wine from the Marlborough Region with dinner... adjacent to the Canterbury area. Very unusual fruity flavour, drink with care! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment
The article Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- 07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

 * Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colonel Arthur Thomas Finney
Thanks, Jim. Dloh cierekim  21:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle for No.3 Post‎ copyedit completed
Hi Jim, just to let you know I've finished the copyedit of Battle for No.3 Post‎. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks once . Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment
The article Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I've nominated this for a main page appearance in Did You Know? at Template:Did you know nominations/Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - gave up on DYK some time ago when it was going thru all the changes. Will be interesting to follow how it goes.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it's very strange - after all the fuss and reforms, the most significant difference for submitters is that GA articles are now eligible. Which I had completely forgotten until the last moment for this one. So here we are. And, like Annibale Bergonzoli said just before the Battle of Bardia, "here we stay".


 * I have ideas about also submitting the Battle for No.3 Post, and others, to help the overall coverage for WWI in this anniversary year. Not sure if there is some project to keep them all for more appropriate dates, but I will check. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle for No.3 Post
The article Battle for No.3 Post you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle for No.3 Post for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Now also at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle for No.3 Post. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third attack on Anzac Cove, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Private and Over the top (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Battle for No.3 Post
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

World War Barnstar

 * Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment
The DYK project (nominate) 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Third attack on Anzac Cove
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Third attack on Anzac Cove 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 Zawed -- 09:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Third attack on Anzac Cove
The article Third attack on Anzac Cove you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Third attack on Anzac Cove for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- 03:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Third attack on Anzac Cove copyedit complete
Hi Jim, just to let you know the copyedit of Third attack on Anzac Cove is now complete.

If it makes it to GA status, I think a DYK hook will probably need to mention "the Man with the Donkey". The other option would be to mention the chance discovery of the Turkish preparations by a passing aircraft, but that's probably not quite so interesting.

I see you have another one in preparation! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you - yes thinking about trying to get that to GA, if done in time would make a good GA for 25 April 99th anniversary of the ANZAC landings. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ... that the the man with the donkey was killed during the Third attack on Anzac Cove?
 * That's a good one. Mostly to make the promoted article first in the hook, I've recast it slightly; Template:Did you know nominations/Third attack on Anzac Cove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Third attack on Anzac Cove
Allen3 talk 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)