User talk:Melbguy05/Archive 1

Invitation to join MILHIST
 Hello,, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

SC Group
Hi Melbguy05, I've made some changes to your changes to the SC Group High Mobility Transporter text. I'm a great believer in Talk on Wiki, especially when changes are substantial. I know the effort that we editors can put in sometimes, and what appear to be random acts or reversion to that work, can be frustrating, even annoying at times. So I'm talking...

I reverted some of your edits back to the original text, not because they're wrong or inaccurate (although they did lack some citation in possibly contentious places), but primarily because I believe some of your changes were too detailed, a bit too technical and not generic enough. There is a HMT/Jackal page where this stuff could and probably should go. Had you located it? The SC Group page, while a little Supacat heavy, is probably a good example of a Wiki page at present. I'm going to add a few more images, and tweak it a little more in the coming days - hopefully!

I had also planned to start on updating the HMT/Jackal page in the not-too-distant future. I'm lucky enough to have a great contact at Supacat, and back from when I had a real job... I also have access to the latest Jane's vehicles Yearbook, which is where the figure breakdown for the UK came.

My most recent changes remain a little shakey in places at the moment, and if I get time later today, I'll go back in and give them a tidy up, checking style, grammar and a bit of presentation. If not, I'll do that tomorrow.

Very best.UndateableOne (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello UndateableOne, I did read the Jackal page, however, that is solely focused on the HMT in the British Army and not on the HMT in general military service. I didn't think people would appreciate if I "moved" the page to High Mobility Vehicle. No other military users call their vehicle the "Jackal". The Supacat page was the only page where I could put the information. If someone wants to read about the Australian, American or Norwegian and not just the British. There are many military pages which document a specific equipment such as a rifle and then have a specific user page such as U.S.

Regards


 * Hi there, I'm thinking the Jackal page should probably become the HMT page. It would get my vote. WE could open a discussion on the subject, but that might attract the interest of those who maybe know rules very well, but maybe not the vehicles and their connection quite so well! I've just referenced Jane's and they don't separate out Jackal. If you have no objection when I start on my updates I will probably move towards changing the page title to something like Supacat High Mobility Transporter, and maybe put in a redirect from Jackal (vehicle) and even Nary? What do you think? I changed the title of what is now the SC Group page from Supacat, so have a basic idea of what needs to be done. And while technically it's none of their business what happens on Wiki, I might even check out what Supacat think. They're quite approachable, or have been in the past!UndateableOne (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, have moved plenty of pages. Jackal would go to High Mobility Transporter don't open discussion. That it easy. You then have to search for every link to the "Jackal" and change it to the "High Mobility Transporter" as well as changing link address - do same at same time. Rename the link as well. Sure the redirect will do it but it is not professional. This takes a lot of time though. Jane's referenced? Jane's has always called it HMT, until British Army bought a heap, aside from 22SAS / SBS?. Never called it the Jackal until non-special forces order for British Army.

What more my original edits that were "although they did lack some citation in possibly contentious places"???? Detail is good. The technical?? not is not on "Jackal" and not on SC Group - I will put on Jackal. I will undo your edit in relation to the models of HMT sold, you need to introduce the models 4x4, 6x6 and Extenda you removed. I think it is important for history to say that the vehicle not always made under license from Lockheed Martin. This is important in reference to the US Army Delta force acquiring and for "production in the US" - which is not on the "Jackal" or now on SC Group. Again, important to say when Lockheed Martin acquired license in 2006. I will undo your edit in relation to the 65 initial order for the SRV used by 22SAS. This it not on the "Jackal" and now not on SC Group. There is no reference for 7 addition SRV in 2006 you added?? Project Minacity is well documented (misspelled everywhere on internet and in publications) and history is important. I will undo your edit in relation to Australia. How do you know Australia bought Extenda? this has never been confirmed... Australian specs I have seen are 4x4 and 6x6 and publications don't help. I will undo your edit when Denmark placed order. I will undo your edit when Norway entered into a contract. Regards

1st Commando Regiment
Sorry for reverting you here - I think that your edit introduced too much jargon than is suitable for Wikipedia's general readership (especially the 1/2 Cdo Regt abbreviations, which aren't really suitable for prose paragraphs IMO), but many of the changes were improvements. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Melbguy05, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Operation Okra has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian Clearance Divers not special forces
Australian Clearance Divers are not special forces but special operations forces. So in the interest of correct information do not revert my changes. Militaryhistoryguru (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I've commented on your talk page. --Melbguy05 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Military History WikiProject Newcomer of the Year

 * Thanks to Anotherclown for the nomination.--Melbguy05 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Military special forces units
It may not be clear that my issue with random SF units is not their existence, but references: special forces units are just about the most vulnerable to ridiculous fan-boy hype. I had no doubt that the Thai units existed (esp the 31st Inf Regt) but I am trying to be merciless at that page about proper references. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I appreciate your efforts to tidy the page up much over do. It can be difficult to find official website references with language difficulties for non English speaking countries. There can be few references or none in English language such as in books. There is also the issue that some countries regard their units as special forces/special operation forces that may not be regarded as so by other countries. The definition of special forces/special operations forces I updated several months back that is in the start of the article. I only include units that are considered the elite special forces of that country if there are many units such as Israel. Maybe for units that there is some certainty it exists and fits the definition the {Citation needed} tag could be used? Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see your not only checking citations in the article for each unit but also if there is a link to an article for that unit checking that it has appropriate references and if not you remove the unit/ even whole countries such as Sri Lanka. What do you think of keeping a country but deleting the units and adding {Refimprove section} with the date? For individual units removing poor citations and adding the {Citation needed}? Most countries have a military special forces unit at the very least for counter terrorism if this is not provided by a police unit. For non English speaking countries it is very useful to have the unit name in their language using {lang|language tag|text}. As I said above, it can be very difficult to find citations in English. A unit can be researched much easier if the actual name in the language of that country is provided. It would be good to have a requirement to include names such as I did for Brunei, Thailand, and others contributors also have. This would be added to "DO NOT ADD ANY SF UNITS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALSO ADDED A REFERENCE / FOOTNOTE". Regards --Melbguy05 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I'm doing; I suppose we could try leaving the country sections; we'd have to see if this led straight back to large-scale unreferenced additions. Yes, it would be helpful to have the names of units in their language. Do me a favour, please, and add "DO NOT ADD ANY SF UNITS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALSO ADDED A REFERENCE / FOOTNOTE" to every country section, especially any you plan to restore without units. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I came across an idea to manage entries in a list that might be a consideration for the special forces unit list - Talk:List of mounted police units = it's a edit notice. For the special forces list you could use WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE without requiring an article. Something like every entry must be verified with a reliable source. Regards --Melbguy05 (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo!! I've seen such things multiple times, but the thought of an edit notice in the LMSFU page never crossed my mind!! Thankyou!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't restore removed comments
Please do not restore comments to my talk page that I have “read” and noted in the edit summary. For you to reinstate a retaliatory post from an IP or notice from an editor and then state that I removed it with “no explanation” is false. You need to look a little closer at my edit summary’s next time - BTW as a newbie am sure your just trying to do the right thing, so keep it up Cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Police Service of Northern Ireland
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''You're in breach of WP:3RR. Your change does not have WP:CONSENSUS. Please self-revert and take the issue to the talk page.'' Rob984 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Dear Rob984, my first ever edit warning. Reading the three-revert rule WP:3RR (for the first time). It states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I did two (2) reverts on the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the past 24 hours and one was a partial (although the WP:3RR treats a partial no different) acknowledging that my previous undo may have been incorrect. I did discuss, not on talk page, but in the edit summary with a reference to the Scotland Police article, that if read, mentions the National Crime Agency in that article. Regards--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah true, I guess you're not yet in breach. You should still take the issue to talk when someone reverts you twice. I don't agree with your rational, and its on you to gain consensus for your edit (which it doesn't currently have). Rob984 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Loughgall ambush
Hello, I'm The Banner. Your recent edit to the page Loughgall ambush appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear The Banner, why did you undo my undo on Loughgall Ambush? in what way was it incorrect. If you look at my edits of that article over the past weeks I have corrected many factual errors. I have cited the European Court of Human Rights court case for that information you undid. Did you even read that before undoing my edit? Regards,--Melbguy05 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are changing the content of the article in a very unjust way. To be honest, I think you are whitewashing and POV-pushing. The Banner talk 20:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Your recent editing history at Loughgall ambush shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Banner talk 21:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Troubles restrictions notification
As you seem to be unaware of this I need to formally notify you of the restriction in regards to Troubles articles, the main one being only 1 revert per 24 hour period, which both you and Banner have violated today. Difference is they know of these restrictions.

Mabuska (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Mabuska, I wasn't aware of the 1 undo for Troubles articles. I was too quick to click undo anyway and also did it too many times WP:3RR. Still a beginner to Wikipedia. I need to read about disputes which I never have before and am now reading WP:DISPUTE for the first time and will also fully read WP:3RR. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to notify you of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as you are involved party. Mabuska (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea Defence
There seems to be a problem with your source(s) regarding the Papua New Guinea Defence Force article. You've listed two Bell 212's in service, but this source makes no reference to the type. This source only states "Ministers announced their support for Australia providing two helicopters to the PNGDF Air Transport Wing under the Defence Cooperation Program for a further three years" so no type is mentioned, nor is no contract signed. Please find a source that is more specific to the claim. - regards FOX 52 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ADF Serials identifies that two Bell 212s are leased from Hevilift P2-DFB and P2-HCW page is dated Sept 2016. Official Papua New Guinea Defence Force website Bell 212 dated May 2016. Australian High Commission to PNG Bell 212 Contract provides up to 1,200 flying hours per year, utilising two Hevilift (PNG), Bell 212 twin-engine helicopters dated March 2014. Earlier in 2013 Bell 212 Rapelling. Asian Military Review Bell 212 PNGDF operates two 212 helicopters, which are leased from the Australian Government dated December 2016. PNG newspaper Post-Courier January 2017 Hevilift using Hevilift helicopters leased by Australian government. " Ministers announced their support for Australia providing two helicopters to the PNGDF Air Transport Wing under the Defence Cooperation Program for a further three years" means that the contract has been extended for a further 3 years. Defence Annual Report (Australia) 2015-2016 commitment to enhance the ability of the PNG Department of Defence through ... the extension of two contracted helicopters.--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Answer in Wikiproject Law Enforcement
There's a reply here. Ominae (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Law Enforcement Unit infobox
Are you still up for making one? Since the Wikiproject Law Enforcement page is dead, I suggest making a draft and submit to Teahouse for someone to check. Ominae (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, still on the to do list. I've never created an infobox or changed an existing one. All new. I will have to do some reading. What is Teahouse? Editor Rob984 is familiar with the Law Enforcement agency template, edited unit articles and I think familiar with editing infoboxes - put a message on their talk page back in September but no response. I had earlier posted on Requested Templates. Still new to Wikipedia. I haven't created an article yet or used WP:UP. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Teahouse is a Wikipedia community where you ask questions. Only mentioned it because no one at the LE page is available to talk to. Good luck. Making a template isn't hard, but be sure that it can be useful in a way or unique... Not sure how to describe it. Maybe use the military unit template box and tweak it a bit as a draft when you can. Ominae (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Papua Conflict
Hi. Sorry about my erroneous removal of the reference to the Steyr gun and the OPM claim - I must have been looking at the wrong cited article. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please take your comments
To talk pages of articles rather than WP:EDSUM - they are not a place where others can join in the discussion - thanks JarrahTree 11:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for starting LE (tactical unit) infobox template?
I'll suggest to get a template page running so's you can practice. Will need to for details since I did it with military equipment. Ominae (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed LE infobox question?
Hey mate. Have you checked the "Infobox law enforcement agency" infobox template?

I mean, some of the info used in it are helpful since they have fields like unit name and such.

Ominae (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to List of military special forces units, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - wolf  16:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI
I added this notice to make sure that you are now fully aware of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, because up until now, it doesn't seem you have been. Also, this edit is me making a legitimate revert. This edit is you being a WP:DICK. If you are not actually reverting an edit, then please don't abuse the 'undo' function just to make a WP:POINT. If you want to inform me of the source that you finally added, then do so on the article talk page, and use WP:PING to notify me, not a bogus revert notice. Thank you - wolf  16:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed LE unit (In Progress)
Proposed template for LE unit (like SWAT).

Got this proposed template up FYI. Ominae (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Update. Not much support for that template. I'll have to use the main LE template soon. Ominae (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit - I copied Template:Infobox military unit I couldn't work out how to strike out parameters (to keep to compare) so typed delete next to and copied/inserted parameters from Template:Infobox law enforcement agency. --Melbguy05 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Military articles
Dude stop changing all of my edits, leave my sources along, they're good enough. Why are you stalking me?  Darth Tomotron   (talk)  07:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Tomotron, an official source is a better source if you are referring to using the Army source over a fitness website for the List of military special forces units article. In that article, I removed units you added that are not special forces including the Clearance Diving Branch and the Special Operations Logistics Squadron. The SOLS whilst it sits in SOCOMD is a support unit and not combat oriented. B Flight is the correct designation for the RAAF Combat Controllers for the List and also the Aust SF ‎template. The Clearance Diving Branch's type is best described as clearance diving given its diverse roles. The Navy does not categorise the CBD as special forces. In Hugh O'Brien's book, whilst a clearance diver, he writes he had to train and uplift his skills to prepare for the Commando selection course. Similar to Clearance Divers in the 1980s preparing for selection to the SASR. Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry for those comments I made earlier, hope you forgive me and also since one of their roles is 'Maritime tactical operations' and are involved in Counter terrorism, those things are special operations material. So I reckon they belong on the special forces list page. Kind regards Flag of the First Galactic Empire.svg  Darth Tomotron  Flag of the First Galactic Empire.svg  (talk)  10:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits that had to be oversighted
Please do not post personal information that is not public, such as the name of a person who chooses to remain anonymous, unless it is disclosed in a reliable source with the subject's permission.

If you continue to do this you will be blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Just curious to know
I wonder why you edit so many military-related articles? Are you a soldier from the Australian Defense Force or a military analyst? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Partial reversion of your edit to the EC145
It is unclear why you made the revision to Eurocopter EC145, ACH145. Your revision was less precise than the previous version, meanwhile there were many areas of this page that need updating and improvement without adjusting good content. I essentially reverted the ACH145.

I see some of the rest of your edit needs other attention, and don't have time to properly evaluate and correct it all.

Airbus itself has made corporate and production changes, including the recent Airbus Corporate Helicopters, and my edit was with that evolution in mind, and its reflection in the encyclopedic content here. You don't have to have a background in aviation, but it does help, and you cant get everything from google. I do not have time right now to correct all the errors I see on this page, many highlighted by a good editing browser, so I'd rather not be walking back or re-writing edits to good content. Happy to discuss this further.

Regards ~ Ssaco (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I reworded the ACH describing it as corporate model the same as descriptions in the Airbus A319, Airbus A320 family, Airbus A350 XWB articles for their Airbus Corporate Jets variants. I added an addition citation which stated it was launched in 2017. Your edit did not have verification for "as of 2017" WP:VERIFY. I edited your citation as the website parameter had the URL "www.airbuscorporatehelicopters.com." not the website name "Airbus Corporate Helicopters" in the website parameter Template:Cite web. I separated the ACH145 and the Mercedes-Benz Style as the ACH145 is available in three configurations: ACH Line, ACH Exclusive and ACH Editions (Mercedes-Benz) - as stated in the additional citation I added ""Airbus Launches ACH – Airbus Corporate Helicopters: the Dedicated Private and Business Aviation Helicopter Brand". Accordingly, your edit was incorrect to state it was "previously the EC145 "Mercedes-Benz Style". Further, Eurocopter also had another corporate variant the Stylence which was released in 2008 prior to the Mercedes-Benz in 2011.   The Mercedes-Benz Style press release in 2011 mentions the availability of the Stylence as does Airbus Helicopter's VIP website a predecessor to the Airbus Corporate Helicopters website.  Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good day  It should have been clear from the new section that I just added, ACH145, especially the redlink Airbus Corporate Helicopters, that it was a work in progress. My ACH145 addition was more than adequate for encyclopedic use.  It was factually and grammatically correct. A new Airbus Corporate Helicopters article is, or would be, the umbrella for six corporate models including this one, plus all the variants, and would complete the information. It has been needed for a while. First I needed the ACH145 for other wikilink purposes. The appropriate action on the part of a subsequent editor is observe this and first assume good faith, per WP:GOODFAITH, and ping me from the talk section on the Eurocopter EC145 page before editing. This would completely obviate edit disputes and time wasting, and your longwinded bluster that's not worth a critique. There are many other errors on this page that you could have corrected. A collegial cooperation is always preferable. I will install the ACH article soon, and disappear that redlink.
 * Incidentally the ACH145 and its subordinates are a rebranding of the EC145 Mercedes-Benz Style, and they all still use the same trim and H145 Mercedes-Benz trim logo, regardless of variant. Regards ~ Ssaco (talk)
 * Your edit was factually incorrect to describe the AC145 as solely the Mercedes-Benz Style. The AC145 includes the former Stylence now named ACH145 Line. I have edited the Design section in the article for the ACH145 Line and the ACH145 Mercedes-Benz Style after checking all references and searching for any better references/removing inferior and added the creation of the ACH brand. For the Variants section ACH145, I briefly summarised the content available in the Design section. The ACH145 does not have a Exclusive product line.--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force Parachuting School
Thanks for the update on the [List of paratrooper forces] page! Very usefull! But please next time *always* include full references for any edit (I've already included it now, so no need for you to intervene). Thanks again! All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Teahouse question
You didn't get a response to this question and I have no idea how to answer. Do you have any other ideas?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox
Seems okay at first glance. Did you contact anyone else for a second opinion? Ominae (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look. Don't know anyone else who is interested in this subject (law enforcement units) and also then in infoboxes. Can you suggest anyone? If the general layout is okay and most of the parameters are okay. I can deploy it and it can be improved/tweaked as editors start using it. Law enforcement agency infobox was tweaked a lot after it was deployed reading through the Talk page. --Melbguy05 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now created Template:Infobox law enforcement unit. --Melbguy05 (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added coordinates for the headquarters following a suggestion from an editor unlike military unit and law enforcement agency infoboxes. I've made a test case User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases with a lighter grey colour for the native names and also made the headerstyle larger like Structure, Commander, etc... the same font size as the unit name. What do you think? The native name is in smaller (regular) font unlike the law enforcement agency infobox. I would like someone who is familiar with writing infobox code to review Infobox law enforcement unit before using it in articles. There are few template editors/administrators I have come across that work with infoboxes.--Melbguy05 (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think those colors are okay. The font is likewise fine as long as I'm able to read it. Someone else should be able to read it. Ominae (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started using the infobox now. I had concerns about the code and wanted someone to check it. I've now read Template:Infobox and tidied it up. The font size for the header and abovestyle (title of the unit) are now the same as Template:Infobox military unit. I hadn't noticed until yesterday the font size differences before. Changing the colour of native names to a lighter one made it easier to read. I updated the documentation to explain the difference with Template:Infobox law enforcement agency. That it is for a unit of a law enforcement agency. I need a better example than GIGN to show the use of all the parameters.--Melbguy05 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe another unit instead? Not sure if you're still running into that problem. Ominae (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning
Hi. Please understand that an infobox template is a "mean" for something, not an end in itself. The Guardia Civil is a law enforcement unit. Whether you have a case for improving the article replacing a particular template or not, that is an issue you should need to address in the talk page, but please, stay away from essentialist approaches when it comes to choose an infobox, because no reader cares (nor should care) about it. Do not blank the author of a source and/or do not use minor edits elsewhere as means to advance what you intended to made by your reverted edit. Because that is not ok. Regards--Asqueladd (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

AUKUS edits
Hello, please stop adding anti European and anti french propaganda to the AUKUS article.

2A01:598:A906:C3A5:1:2:4AD9:7923 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

think dollars should be clarified
I noticed your revert of my explanation on the Mr Cruel article that the $1 million is in Australian dollars. I really think it was a good edit. It is true that the article is about events in Australia. But I imagine many readers will not know that Australia's currency is called the dollar, like the American dollar, and will think the amounts given are American dollars. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should Jason Derek Brown, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, Eugene Palmer (criminal), Murder of Seth Rich, Yaser Abdel Said and others use US dollars instead of a dollar as Australia's currency is named the dollar? Numerous countries use the dollar see List of circulating currencies. If that article is correct over 50 countries. Every Wikipedia article that used a dollar amount would have to state which dollar including US articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Greg Dahlen, my talk page can be accessed by clicking the "talk" link in my signature. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC) (removed word at 16:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC))

Administrators'_noticeboard
Dear Melbguy05, you may(or may not) be interested in commenting at this WP:AN discussion. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a comment.--Melbguy05 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I spent a few hours cleaning up Coldstreamer20's UK MOD image uploads as they used Open Government Licence for some, new larger size versions were added without changing the source so I added Defence Brand Portal as they were uploading images from there to Commons then and also added a source for one image. I reverted Badge airborne delivery wing 1024x1024.png when a larger size was added on 11 January 2022 without sourcing the Defence Brand Portal. Not sure why they didn't upload it as a new file like they did other Defence Brand Portal images they were uploading then to Wikipedia after being advised they weren't compatible with Commons. The only image left with an issue is 12th Signal Group (British Army) patch.jpg 12th Signal Brigade (United Kingdom) which is licensed as self cc-by-4.0 as I couldn't find a source for it. It was the only self cc-by-4.0 image.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)