User talk:RoslynSKP/Archive 2

Delays

 * If there is, either it's an issue on your end of the connection, or it is a temporary technical issue that should be fixed soon. I don't experience such a delay. Huon (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually its very much better now. Thanks again. --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt the dialogue box is the issue. I've just edited myself, and it took much less than twenty seconds to save.
 * Keep in mind that there is probably no other website you can edit like Wikipedia. Again, it's probably on your end. --I dream of horses @ 03:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway of checking if my edits are being delayed for some reason? As I say, its only on Wikipedia that there is this delay. By the way its back to about 15 seconds. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to check for that. Sorry. --I dream of horses @ 04:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know who might? --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but since I don't, I'll readd the help me template. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  04:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please visit https://getfirebug.com/network and see what data you get from there. You can copy-paste it. Gryllida (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this query; it may stay open while an issue is being worked on, but not when waiting on more information from you for several hours with no reply. If you retrieve more troubleshooting information from your side, you are encouraged to re-open the query by replacing helpme-helped with helpme, and asking a question at section bottom. Gryllida (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, real life took over. I'm not all that computerliterate so I don't understand what getfirebug is, or what it does. However, today am trying a different browser and, so far, so good. Thanks anyway. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't last long and the delay is once more reestablished. --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A change of browser helped for a time, just as the initial call for help sped things up, for a short time. But now hitting save means a wait of up to 30 seconds while "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" is shown followed by "transferring data from bits.wikipedia." This sort of delay doesn't occur when its a preview.


 * You may want to ask the more tech-savvy editors at WP:Village pump (technical); however, you will have to provide much more information. For example, what browser do you use? Does this happen with every edit, or only with specific pages? Can you find out what your connection's upload and download speeds are? Firebug is an app for the Firefox browser that will provide detailed information on what part of loading the page takes which amount of time; that obviously would help pinpoint the problem. I must say, though, that this is almost certainly a problem on your end and not something Wikipedia-related. Huon (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that computerliterate, obviously ... so I probably wouldn't understand the technical bods. The problem is not the speed at which the information is transferred from my computer to Wikipedia, which is pretty fast, its the delay waiting for Wikipedia, before that happens. --Rskp (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So what exactly do you expect me or random helpers to do about that? Even if (particularly if) it were a Wikipedia issue, WP:Village pump (technical) still would be your best bet. Huon (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

12:14 hit save button Wikimedia foundation error 12:15 yet edit shows on article history at 12:16 the try again link hit at 12:16 "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" Wikimedia foundation error 12:17 went back to preview at 12:18 to save already saved article resulted in "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" until Wikimedia foundation error 12:19 went back to article and hit reload to find the edit which had been saved at 01:14
 * Delays on 3.11.13

hit save at 12:22 "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" Wikimedia foundation error 12:23 yet edit shows on article history at 01:22 went back to edit and back to article then hit reload and edit shown

save 12:42 Wikimedia foundation error 12:43 yet edit saved and appeared in article history at 12:42 back to article and reload shows edit added at 12:42 --Rskp (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The delays continue but the results for two edits both saved at the same time were vastly different. At 2:40 (one hour different from Wikitime) both Yildirim Army Group and Southern Palestine Offensive Yildirm Army group saved. At 2:41 Yildirim Army Group edit saved while Southern Palestine Offensive edit at 2:41 showed a Wikimedia foundation error but the article history page showed the edit saved at 2:41. --Rskp (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Roslyn, the general consensus is that you need to go to Village pump (technical), or at least use an alternative method to helpme to resolve this issue. Please do so. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  04:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Abu Tellul
Please stop moving this article until there is a consenus to do so. I don't think this is unreasonable. Anotherclown (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unreasonable. The discussion was progressing yesterday. What sources use the term "Battle"? You have yet to cite a credible source which is not under the widely held, but mistaken impression, that 2 divisions were involved in this fight. Carver p. 231 is another example of this mistake. --Rskp (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Megiddo (1918) details
I regret that I have found it necessary to revert for the second time your inclusion of details concerning Allied plans and dispositions. The text in question reads: "During the weeks before the September attack, enemy aerial activity dropped markedly; although during one week in June hostile aeroplanes crossed the British front lines 100 times, mainly on the tip–and–run principle at altitudes of 16000 –, by the last week in August this number had dropped to 18 and during the three following weeks of September it was reduced to just four enemy aircraft. On 29 August Brigadier-General Amyas Borton arrived in a new Handley–Page bomber, the only one of its type in this theatre of the war, which he had flown from England to Ramleh. On 14 September, a Rumpler two-seater was destroyed near Jenin, and one or two aircraft were seen in the distance on 15 September south of Jaffa but soon after flew north. Apart from these, during the 18 days before the start of the battle, only two or three German aircraft were seen flying."

Firstly, was it really vital to record that a Rumpler was shot down near Jenin (far behind the Ottoman front lines)? Did this one Rumpler have the capability by itself to affect the course of the campaign? This is one instance of what I believe to be unnecessary detail. Even worse, "one or two aircraft were seen in the distance ..." I see no particular reason to include this non-event. Secondly, the use of the HP 0/400 is mentioned in the text on the battle (and I may expand this with quotes from Lawrence). It is unnecessary to detail the date on which it arrived. And thirdly, if the entire section is not copypaste, the sentence on the bomber's arrival is sandwiched between two sentences related to each other but in no way to the 0/400 itself, making it a non-sequitur (lat, "it does not follow"). Inserting facts seemingly at random threatens to turn a reasonably coherent section into a list of trivia. If you really insist on inserting Borden's arrival with the bomber, then I would suggest it belongs with the section on Allied reorganisation where Allenby's demand for air reinforcements is noted.

Your edit summary stated ... it was the Handley-Page which contributed to the deadly effectiveness of the bombing of two Ottoman armies in the Judean Hills and how the British forces increasingly dominated the skies. It may be useful to mention the HP's role, but not particularly useful to record the diary date on which it flew to Palestine. HLGallon (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I regret that I have once more thought it necessary to revert your last addition. The explanatory note did not appear under "Notes" or "References" as no group had been declared, but is "40,598 front line infantrymen armed with 19,819 rifles" an estimate? The figures clearly come from Ottoman sources. The Ottoman estimates of Allied strength are unnecessary, as they match the official figures in the info. box (source Liddell Hart, page 432) almost exactly. The numbers of machine guns are already given. Once again, please don't stuff interesting-looking facts into the article without checking them for relevance.


 * Finally, "Liman" was not von Sanders's first name. The format is "Otto" (first name) "Liman" (family name) "von Sanders" (estate or title). That usage was common in Bavaria and Austria e.g. Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf is invariably referred to as "Conrad" once his full moniker is established.


 * Ericson's strengths for Yilderim may replace the Allied estimates (which were more favourable to the Ottomans) in the information box if you wish, but preferably rounded to the nearest thousand. HLGallon (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Updated HLGallon (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please try to be concise. I have had to remove vast amounts of repetition, and unnecessary detail. I appreciate that you are working from several detailed sources, but the idea is to be concise and clear. Put as many refs in as you want, but if two sources duplicate each other, don't put text in from both.HLGallon (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When a number of sources have been quoted its because they all contributed some part of the information in the para or sentence. --Rskp (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Accepted, and some of your inclusions to this and other articles have been invaluable. Where I take issue is where you have thrown in information from multiple sources without appearing to consider where they could be condensed, leading to repetition, or where they are contradictory. For example, in the section on Allenby's plans, you wrote something like, "the Corps would capture Ottoman Eighth Army's headquarters at Tulkarm ... etc, etc, etc ... the Corps would then advance north east to Tul-Keram [the same place] ", clearly confusing. We appear to have rather different writing styles. I consider that the value of an article lies not in its size, but in its clarity, to which conciseness contributes. In an article such as that on Megiddo, which deals with the movement of armies and divisions, long expositions on single aircraft (commonplace German Rumplers, not the HP 0/400 which I accept was vital in itself) do not add any significant facts and smother the overall picture in unnecessary trifles. HLGallon (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair comments. Agree that movements of corps and division size units should be the main focus, except when smaller units are involved in particular significant operations. I think it is a good thing that we have different styles and value your views regarding this article. There is some research that I would like to add and wonder how best to do so. I appreciate your problem with contradictory material which I missed, sorry. Its been apparent to me before that such contradictions and other problems like amazingly long sentences arise during the incorporation stage but are eventually fixed by going through the whole thing many times as a copy editor would. If you see other articles I've been involved in such problems have been worked through until they are ready for a proper copyedit. Perhaps a way forward here could be an under construction tag, or would it be possible to incorporate the material elsewhere e.g. a sandbox, and jointly edit it before it becomes part of the article? --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Back again. I must insist that the dates of this battle be determined *not* by the narrow primary source which details British and Commonwealth medals etc. You stated that "cut reference to preliminary attack on Deraa which the source quoted states did not affect the preparations for the main attack add source which reflects battle honours and awards". By "source quoted" I assume you mean Erickson, p.198. Erickson's actual words: "The British offensive began with the Arabs and Colonel T. E. Lawrence conducting railway-cutting raids between Dera and Amman on September 16." What could be clearer? He continues "On September 17 and 18 the British Twentieth Corps began a diversionary atteck in the center of the Turkish front. These operations were designed to fix the Turks in place and deceive them as to the true location of the main attack. The Turks were not deceived, but their attention remained fixed on the hills near Jerusalem where Liman von Sanders thought Allenby would strike." That is not to say that the Ottomans did not react to the Deraa attack, and to say that "the Turks were not deceived", is a long way from the claim that it "did not affect the preparations for the main attack." This article is about the complete battle, and no part of it should be excluded because no British, Commonwealth or Dominion soldier was present to win a gong in it. The awards committee nomenclature is already sourced and cited in the aftermath section. You don't need to "add" it again. HLGallon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You reverted, with the arguments "To suggest this battle started with a raid days before and many miles away from the battle is narrow, misleading and does not reflect the vast majority of sources which describe battle beginning on 19 September." I disagree. Most of the sources I have read, which deal with the battle and campaign as a whole include the Deraa attacks, which were an integral part of the overall (Allenby's strategy). (Personal attack removed) I do not consider that "the vast majority" of sources support your view. Once again, if you persist on edit-warring on this point, I will seek a RfC for independent ruling. Further in your post you claim "There was no reaction to the Deraa raid ..." This is incorrect; a brigade was sent from El Afula to Deraa. "The mention of Amageddon is completely irrelevant. It is necessary to add a citation when the information added is from that particular source." I'm not too sure what you are talking about here. What source? HLGallon (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If what I wrote appeared to be a personal attack, then I apologise. I intended it to be an observation on the neutrality or otherwise of sources. I also acknowledge that I do not own the article on the battle. Where I took issue was whether my view or yours was "narrow". There is room for both views to be correct; whether the battle's dates and events are as described in official sources (which is verifiable) but which may reflect only a partial standpoint, or whether it should be regarded as a strategic whole, which is supported by other sources which are not as exact in their terminology. I will back down on this issue at least, but please consider that the BNC source would by definition not include that Hashemite army in its scope. And, a sustained six-day campaign of rail-cutting and interdiction by several thousand armed men scarcely qualifies as a mere "raid". HLGallon (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Affair/Battle of Abu Tellul
Hello, I have just removed the dispute tag you added to the Battle of Abu Tellul. There appears to be a consensus on the article's talk page in support of the current name. This has included input from editors who were previously uninvolved in the dispute who responded to the request at WT:MILHIST. As such, I don't think that the tag is justified at present or is likely to achieve anything. Similarly, continuing what's ended up as a heated argument isn't likely to produce a different result. My suggestion is that you move on from this issue. However, if you would like a broader range of editors to comment on the name of the article, I would suggest that, per WP:DR, you open a request for comment on the matter. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've very belatedly replied to your latest message on my talk page - sorry for missing it earlier this week. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Katia Good Article reassessment
The reassessment of this article is here Talk:Battle of Katia/GA1 if you want to address any points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wavell oclc number
Hi, Roslyn. I'm trying to find the oclc number for the Wavelll source listed in Battle of Magdhaba. Unfortunately, I'm not having much luck. Here is the list of editions on worldcat:. If you get a chance, could you please take a look and see if you can identify the correct version? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, on the articles for Magdhaba, Katia and Rafa I found that there was a citation to "Preston 1921", but there was no source listed in the References list. I've added the one that I think it is, but I am not 100% certain. If you can, can you please check these edits are correct? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this AustralianRupert. Sorry I overlooked replying - or did I reply to your talk page? Anyway just checked Preston has been added to the bibliographies. Not sure what to do about Wavell though as the particular edition is not on worldcat. --Rskp (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you work on the Sinai campaign
Thank you for the enormous contribution you have made to making this theatre of the war available in detail to readers on the Internet. My grandfather, in the British 42nd Division's artillery, spent 1915 and 1916 in Egypt and the Sinai with originally 15-pounder and then 18-pounder guns. He may be in those photographs amongst the camels ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great! Wow I'm so grateful to you for your feedback. You are exactly the kind of reader I was hoping, would find in my fanatical interest in this part of the war, a means of connecting with the past. Thanks again, --Rskp (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ericson and Battle of Megiddo
I have temporarily commented out the footnote on the Ottoman armies' readiness on the eve of the assault. Not for the first time, Ericson is uncritically repeating the views of the Ottoman army and army group commanders, and to repeat this in the article is to give undue weight to a minority view. A commander in chief (Liman) who is forced to flee his HQ as enemy cavalry nearly overrun it certainly has no real right to claim "I was expecting that!" I believe that it is sufficient to note, as the article already states, that the Ottomans were aware of the British plans, but too late to do anything as drastic as pulling back. HLGallon (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Erickson note regarding Ottoman intelligence, is referring to the initial infantry attack on the front line, which they expected, not the cavalry arriving at Nazareth quite a few hours later. I agree Liman did not expect to see cavalry, approaching his headquarters so soon after the front line had been decimated. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy violations
I have found and deleted several sections of content in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign series of articles edited by yourself. The articles Sinai and Palestine Campaign, First Battle of Gaza, Battle of Rafa, Battle of Magdhaba, First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) and Capture of Jericho (1918) have all had copied content added. These have been identified as copied from Powles The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine which is available |online and is easy to search with Goggle. Other violations have been found to the Wavell and Falls books used as references when doing a Google search. Now another editor has found several other paragraphs of text that appear to be copied from the source in the Occupation of the Jordan Valley (1918) see, and. As noted above in the Copyright problem: Affair of Katia section and in the section you deleted |here with the edit summery cut nonsense, you can not copy text from sources into Wikipedia. See Copyright violations and Copyrights for our policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators can be blocked from editing. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that Jim Sweeney. Its been clear for some time that you have not done the reading e.g. saying the Battle of Jaffa ended the Sinai and Palestine campaign and copying all but three web cites when you created that article from an article I had taken to GA. What you and your 'another editor' have found are perfectly legitimate. Most often the sources are multiple recognising that more than once source has been used to create the para. Powles has been heavily edited before being included because his style is so out of date, unless he is describing landscape. You wouldn't know but not only did he write the history but he was there. So quoting him, particularly the landscape etc. is first hand and perfectly legitimate. I understand that you have edited these articles without the necessary knowledge. Please undo the damage you have done asap. --Rskp (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No I will not replace copied text. The official history, Powles, Falls and Wavell were copied word for word, or close paraphrasing, that's why it was deleted. Once again do not comment on editors you have no idea what I may know or what my knowledge is. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that someone who is not familiar with the reading is not going to be able to make the kinds of judgements you have made. Your only contributions to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign area apart from copyedits, appear to have been sourced from web sites and other editor's work. Tomorrow I will review closely the cuts you have made and respond accordingly. I hope this is not going to be another waste of time like the Anzac Mounted Division name changes, and in the last few days the change of a unit from 156th to 155th because you thought it was a typo, which was seriously strange, and having identified some serious errors in citations and fixed them you undid my fix. What the? --Rskp (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To begin with the 1st Gaza quotes which you say are a problem -

the original Powles reads '''The wagons of the Anzac Mounted Division were pulled by teams of mules, two in the pole and three in the lead, driven by one man from the box. These wagons and mules did such excellent service that the five-mule team was laid down for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force and they ultimately almost superseded the British four or six horse ride-and-drive teams. This became in the Wikipedia article The wagons with their teams of mules, two in the pole and three in the lead, driven by one man from the box, did such excellent service that the five-mule team was laid down for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force as being the perfect transport for the work; and they ultimately almost superseded the British four or six horse ride-and-drive team.''' And the original Powles reads On the day after the Rafa races the preliminary moves prior to the attack on Gaza began, and all roads and tracks possible for wheels were carefully reconnoitred as far as Belah and allotted to the different formations; for the force to be employed on this undertaking was to consist, for the first time in the campaign, of all arms—infantry, cavalry and guns, and was now called "East Force," consisting of the Anzac Mounted Division, Imperial Mounted Division (one Light Horse Brigade and two Yeomanry Brigades), the Camel Brigade and three Infantry Divisions—the 52nd, 53rd, and 54th, all under the command of General Dobell of West African fame. This became in the Wikipedia article All roads and tracks were reconnoitred as far as north as Deir el Belah and by 22 March, preliminary moves had begun.

Clearly these are not examples of word-for-word copying. Can you please explain more fully your problems with these two examples and indicate what rules they contravene, so that I can more clearly understand your point of view? --Rskp (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly they are almost word for word and close paraphrasing. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1st Gaza quotes have been substantially rewritten and I hope they now conform to Wikipedia policy. The verifications of sources in the Rafa article have been cut (this was not a copy issue) while that in the Magdhaba article has been verified - see that article's talk page (also not a copy issue). I'm grateful for the problems with the Occupation of the Jordan Valley article being pointed out and these have been tweaked or substantially rewritten to hopefully conform to Wikipedia policy.

Thanks once again Jim Sweeney for pointing out these problems. I hope they are now fixed to your satisfaction. --Rskp (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I hasten to add that these problems would have been picked up during the copyedit process and applications to GA. But thanks anyway. Keep up the good work. --Rskp (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Superb articles!
Just to want to say your contribution to the Middle East campaign in WWI is beyond outstanding! Many thanks sir! ChristiaandeWet (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its really only the Sinai and Palestine Campaign section, but thanks for your interest. --Rskp (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WWI Editathon
Hi,

Just to let you know we've finalised the list of academics who'll be attending the World War I editathon next month, along with their areas of specialisation. If any of these are topics you'd be particularly interested in collaborating on, or you want to suggest articles in those fields that need work, please do make a note on the page - it'd be great if we could have some suggested topics ready in advance.

We're still working out how best to organise remote participation, but I'll be in touch closer to the time with more details.

Any questions, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In no particular order:
 * To crosslink between two wikis, you can use interwiki links; to link to an English Wikipedia page from the WMUK wiki, use :en:w: in front of the link, and to link to the WMUK wiki from here, use :wmuk: before the link.
 * I am not sure if we have anyone specialising in the Palestine campaign present - the Middle Eastern aspect is more focused on the political effects, I think - but hopefully we can manage something if so!
 * Regarding naming issues, the debate over naming (and deciding where X battle ends and Y begins) extends beyond the S&P articles to military historiography more generally. I know this has been discussed on and off several times before, but if it's still an ongoing dispute it might be worth seeing if a third party (one of the project coordinators?) would be willing to pull together an RFC on it. This is something where wide consensus on Wikipedia is the important part - it's not something which we can usefully settle in a small session... Andrew Gray (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Campaignboxes are certainly a thing that's been troublesome over the years - in many cases, they've accrued bit by bit as articles are written, without any clear hierarchy or standardised approach. Some of the WWII ones are entirely uncontentious but are by far the worst - it's very difficult to find an article covering some of the 1944/45 Western European events using this approach. There's also issues of "interpretation" - the WWII Eastern Front is particularly bad for this, where the two historiographical approaches disagree entirely on what the battles were called and quite what those titles cover.
 * There's a whole lot of tangled issues caught up here (politics, different historical interpretations, different weights, terminology, etc etc etc) and I think we do need at some point to have a widespread community debate about how we handle the naming and taxonomy of events like battles. Structuring it is going to be hard, though! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'm grateful for your thoughts about campaignboxes and the wider view. Clearly standardisation is an aim but not at this stage a necessity. --Rskp (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you! (The problems of lacking an inbox on talkpages...)
 * The presentation sadly won't be streamed (unless we achieve a technical miracle) but we might be able to hack together an audio feed - at the very least, I'm hoping there'll be an audio recording we can circulate later. I haven't seen the draft, but I believe he's wanting to talk about the "metaphorical Armageddon" - the ethical issues of writing history in the context of the memorials and cemeteries - what can you reasonably say, how should you say it, how much should you defer to the sensibilities involved, etc. It's quite interesting, and as a theme it fits well with our NPOV debates!
 * I'll definitely mention the Meggido group of articles to anyone interested. We have a few people there interested in writing about the Indian participation, and this campaign is particularly interesting in that regard. (The article doesn't mention a breakdown of numbers, but with a quick headcount of units it looks like just over half the troops involved would have been Indian - higher than might be assumed!)
 * Feel free to leave some notes here - I've set up a (currently blank) page for onwiki coordination. We'll be starting about 10am London time (UTC+1) tomorrow - ie, in about 20 hours. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE request for Battle of Nablus (1918)
Hi, I've completed the copy edit for this article. Please review and if you have any comments, feel free to drop by my talk page. Blackmane (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you get feedback for more improvements after a GAR, please let me know if you need any help. Blackmane (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, much appreciated. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt (1918)
Hi,

Why did you wreck your own article by putting the WWI template at the beginning rather than the end?

A momentary lapse there, eh? Varlaam (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You concatenated WWI to the Campaignboxes. It looks normal again now. Cheers, Varlaam (talk)
 * Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep got that edit with the Scrymgeour ref wrong, not sure how I missed it. Apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, Anotherclown. Have a nice day. :) --Rskp (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Nablus (1918)
Hi Roslyn, I had a look at the formatting change you made on the quotes in the article. I was thinking that it might be better to change them to use a quotation box to make them stand out a bit. As an example.

What do you think? Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Move review for First Transjordan attack on Amman
An editor has asked for a Move review of First Transjordan attack on Amman. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Neotarf (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking
Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Bir el Mazar and Battle of Nahr el Faliq. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Will do. Sorry I didn't think there would be any problems. There was no need for the Battle of Nahr el Faliq redirect as that name was only in use in my userspace while I was developing the Battle of Tulkarm article. And Bir el Mazar was just odd. --Rskp (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nazareth (1918)
Hi, RoslynSKP, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I appreciate your input. Already the article is much better. --Rskp (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; I'm now done; please feel free to contact me about any ongoing issues with the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Capture of Jenin (1918) Copyedit Request
I have completed going through this as requested. Very nice job - highly detailed article. No doubt I probably incorporated a few errors, but they should be pretty easy for you to spot. Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to workshops on editing Wikipedia
Dear RoslynSKP,

We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to. First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions. Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below. We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details. Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

OIIOxford (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 11:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg
Sorry to be so picky, but could you please explain why you feel that this is in the public domain? J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 70 year rule applies to 70 years after the death of the author, not 70 years after publication, unless I am mistaken. However, even if it was 70 years after publication, this image would not be PD until 1 January 1997 in the UK, and, for the tag you've used to be accurate, it would have to be PD in the UK on 1 January 1996. J Milburn (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If its just a case of wrong tag, can you tell me which one should be used? --Rskp (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this image isn't public domain, meaning that there is no appropriate tag- clearly, this would not meet the non-free use criteria. I apprecaite that it probably seems overly picky, but these are the rules we have to follow... J Milburn (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg, 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. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't actually mean to send you the automated message, but, as you can see, I've nominated the image for deletion. Thanks for understanding- I appreciate that these cases can be very frustrating. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Request help
adminhelp
 * The purpose of this template is to call an administrator here to view a request for help that provides the specifics of the issue you need help with. Your request is empty. When you have written out your reason for requesting help, you can repost the adminhelp template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The problem is with an editor Jim Sweeney who has been and continues to cut information from a number of articles. Can he be stopped? --Rskp (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again. You did not repost the adminhelp template so no one but me and other watching this page would see your post. In any event, you are clearly. patently, on the wrong side of this issue. There is really no room for argument, only for understanding why. I have not investigated whether you added the copyright infringing text. It might have been others. But the two side-by-side blocks of text you quote higher on this page are blatant copyright violations. You appear to be arguing they are not in good faith, but you need to understand that you don't have a leg to stand on and if you are the person who added any of that text, you must not do so in the future, and would be subject to being blocked if you did so. Please, before any kind of knee jerk reaction to reading this post, read Close paraphrasing. The side-by-side text you quote, doesn't even qualify as close paraphrasing; much of it is word-for-word copy and pasting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to. The problems were with the Nazareth article which I posted to Jim Sweeney's talk page but he just cut without replying. They were :

Your revision stated "Not mentioned in text - so what did he command ?)" when you cut reference to the commander of the 13th Cavalry Brigade. He is mentioned four times in the article. The 13th Cavalry Brigade attacked and eventually captured Nazareth in the process Kelly lost his command because of three failures which are described in the article. --Rskp (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) and

Revision as of 18:57, 25 July 2012 (edit) (undo) Jim Sweeney (talk | contribs) (Copyedit (minor)) 

I've cut "Essex Battery Royal Horse Artillery (RHA) and Nottinghamshire Battery RHA, 5th Field Squadron Royal Engineers" because you added them without citation or explanation. You claim a minor copyedit. --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The first clearly shows he doesn't even bother reading the articles he cuts. --Rskp (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You must be clearer when you post a request for help! You must know what I was talking about since I linked to it and you were completely involved in that discussion. I apologize for thinking this was about the same issue, but it was certainly logical given that that conversation was also about removal of text, is the only conversation on this page between the two of you, and you did not describe what removal you were talking about. You are in a content dispute. Administrators are not judges with the power to legislate such matters. Consensus needs to be reached on content issues. I advise you to read and follow the steps at Dispute resolution. I would mention though, since it's often applicable to disputes between parties that focus on removal and adding back of content, the dictates of WP:BURDEN. In short, if someone disputes the validity of content that is not cited through an inline citation, the burden is on the person who wishes to keep the material to source it using an inline citation. Of course, where the two parties are arguing about interpretation of sources and what should be given weight—with both sides material being sourced, this is not applicable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm really sorry I was confused and didn't see the link. Its really not a dispute or validity but about an editor not reading the article they are editing and making wrong edits and adding information without a citation or cutting information in the info box that is relevant to the article. There are a great deal of edits involved and I just don't know what can be done.--Rskp (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

help
Second Request. Jim Sweeney has been and continues to cut information from a large number of articles.

Fuhghettaboutit merely remonstrated about February copy violations then went on about content issues and ignored the crux of the problem.

The crux is these two posts I added to Jim Sweeney's talk page which he not only ignored but cut

Your revision stated "Not mentioned in text - so what did he command ?)" when you cut reference to the commander of the 13th Cavalry Brigade. He is mentioned four times in the article. The 13th Cavalry Brigade attacked and eventually captured Nazareth in the process Kelly lost his command because of three failures which are described in the article. --Rskp (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) and

Revision as of 18:57, 25 July 2012 (edit) (undo) Jim Sweeney (talk | contribs) (Copyedit (minor)) 

I've cut "Essex Battery Royal Horse Artillery (RHA) and Nottinghamshire Battery RHA, 5th Field Squadron Royal Engineers" because you added them without citation or explanation. You claim a minor copyedit. --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The first example clearly shows he didn't even bother to read the article he made copious edits and the second one of adding information without citation is something he does too much of.

What can be done to curb these unhelpful edits? --Rskp (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not asked for an admin to do anything. You are in a dispute with another editor about the content of an article.  You can claim it is not a content dispute and that the other edit is making wrong edits but that does not change the fact that this is a content dispute.  You feel the content should be one way and the other editor appears to disagree with you.
 * The policy on dispute resolution has good information on how to proceed and resolve this dispute. GB fan 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capture of Afulah and Beisan
The article Capture of Afulah and Beisan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Capture of Afulah and Beisan for comments about the article. Well done! Droodkin (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Capture of Tiberias (1918)
Hi, RoslynSKP, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; it's now done; please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I really appreciate your time and interest. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flare gun
Hello! Your submission of Flare gun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 16:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Nablus (1918). 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, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I've protected all three pages. I am hesitant to block because I want you to discuss this and reach a clear consensus with the other party/parties, preferably with more feedback. Once consensus is established, please follow it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The protection was secretly lifted some days ago. What's next? --Rskp (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking
Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Action of Arsuf. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Sharon
The article Battle of Sharon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Sharon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.
 * Can I suggest that you ask a specific GOCE copyeditor who is also a MILHIST member to do the c/e? I have had excellent work done by User:Dianna, for example.Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, as I explained on the Battle of Sharon talk page, I did ask for a GOCE copyeditor but was non-plussed by the approach taken as outlines in . I will follow your suggestions after a thorough re-read of the Sharon article. --Rskp (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See also's
G'day RoslynSKP. The "See also"'s I have deleted from the Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles are already linked in the text of each of the articles. I may have screwed one or two up, but probably not, as I carefully checked them before culling. Using them in the way you are is contrary to WP:BODY. The same rules apply to the See also section at the bottom of articles, ie if the article is linked in the text, you do not link it again in a see also template or section. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry, I was thinking of the see alsos at the top of the Background as more of a general alert to readers listing other relevant articles. I'd just like to put the Battle of Arara back in the background section of the Battle of Tabsor as it only occurs once in the intro and is quite obscure. I'm also mindful of the complexity of the Megiddo fighting. --Rskp (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise you were talking about the Battle of Tabsor link in the Tabsor Defences subsection. I really think this is a useful link here as its a description of the battlefield of the Tabsor attack as well as Tulkarm. These battles were fought side by side and I'd really like to reinsert it. What do you think? --Rskp (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cutting the Capture of Damascus makes these see alsos look distinctly weird in the Pursuit of Haritan article. What remains in the two earlier battles but without battle which immediately preceeds it. Can this WP:Body be more loosely interpreted in these few cases? --Rskp (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it further, there is also quite a lot of what looks a lot like WP:EASTEREGGing in these articles with the wikilinking. Nearly every single one of these articles definitely has potential to be MILHIST A Class, but the "See also" linking will get picked up by the first ACR reviewer that looks at it. I am (kind of) surprised that no-one has brought it up before given the number of these articles that are GA, but that's the nature of WP, isn't it? Sometimes you just get lucky and sometimes you cop a pedantic bastard like me... :) I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it is a MOS issue that will get picked up on by others. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be extatic with a GA. There are no plans to go on to A. I'm more concerned with readability. Thanks for the easteregg link. I've seen other editors mention it but never understood what they were talking about. --Rskp (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Battle of Sharon/GA2
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Battle of Sharon/GA2. WikiCopter Returns 18:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

About the Egyptian expeditionary force - I have no idea why a vast amount of info on the particular regiments that constituted the force is of any encyclopedic interest at all, but if you think it's important then fine, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

GA pass...
Congrats on Third Transjordan attack passing; I know a lot of work has gone into this one! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:AWMB02132IrakMens.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AWMB02132IrakMens.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 9 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) 04:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Wavell p.134.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Wavell p.134.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've added details so that the source can be more easily identified. --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find the tag on the list. Has it been changed? --Rskp (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This book has been published in 25 editions (could be as many as 35) since first being published in 1925, so its a very widely known and referenced source. --Rskp (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Wavell p.134.jpeg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wavell p.134.jpeg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the problem is here Diannaa. See File:Wavell p.158.jpeg which appears has the right copyright status. --Rskp (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the markup so the PD UK template displays. Anotherclown (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:
 * File:Nablus road; Ain Sinai and Yebrud (1918) (IWM Q12647).jpeg
 * DESCRIPTION: Nablus road; Ain Sinai and Yebrud


 * File:IWM Q12606.jpeg
 * DESCRIPTION: Pontoon bridge at Ghoraniyeh


 * File:Hajleh March, 1918.jpeg
 * DESCRIPTION: Pontoon bridge over Jordan River at Hajleh March, 1918


 * File:Camels crossing the Jordan River.jpg
 * DESCRIPTION: Camels crossing pontoon bridge over Jordan River at Ghoraniyeh


 * File:Wadi Es Salt.jpeg
 * DESCRIPTION: Photo of Wadi Es Salt


 * File:IWM MH33938 5LHR.jpeg
 * DESCRIPTION: The 5th Light Horse Regiment on alert, left bank outpost Ghoranyeh Bridgehead

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.

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?) 09:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The file page of all these photos have a description which I've copied and added above for your info. --Rskp (talk) 01:24, 15 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) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wolseley Field Ambulance
Because it seems to me there is a risk that your new addition to Wolseley may be removed (cars get used for so many purposes) do you think it also might be added to the Field Ambulance article? Just a suggestion. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've added it to the Scottish Mounted Brigade article. --Rskp (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much Hawkeye7. And thanks a lot for reviewing the Beersheba article. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links
Sorry to be a pain but I edited your edits of my edits of someone else's edits on the Gallipoli page. I'd taken blue links out after using the "Duplicate links" button which showed them up and your edits reduplicated them. I also put "Subsequent operations" back as a title because I thought that specifying the place in the title implied that there were other places dealt with seperately (like Europe which is mentioned in the section). That said I'm having second thoughts about the word "subsequent" and wonder if it's too much of a latinate polysyllable, perhaps "later" would be better? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied on your talkpage. --Rskp (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite galling when you realise there's such an obvious shortcut. ;O) The trouble with matters of layout is that I'm reaching a state of satisfaction with my practice which leaves me vulnerable to complacency, particularly with my subjects being unpopular. The thing I've gained by joining in with the Gallipoli page is a chance to broaden my thinking again and your contributions have been a great help. That said I'm having third thoughts about "subsequent" because "later" has a temporal connotation but not such an obvious link with particular Great War operations or theatres; "following" might do. Anyway thanks for being so understanding.Keith-264 (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied to talkpage. --Rskp (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look on the left margin of the page (a bit below the search box) there's a box called "toolbox" which has the duplicate link finder and a few other functions. Did you mean the bloke with the ironic eyebrow? ; O ) [semicolon, capital O, bracket]. My writing isn't concise to start with, I copy and paste a section into my sandbox and work on it there, so the version that appears on a page is the second or third draft, with all my verbiage and late night prose taken out. Sandbox has some details on setting one up like this one User:Keith-264/sandbox2. By the end of the year I hope to have revised most of the Somme battles on similar lines to the Egypt and Palestine pages that you've done so much to improve. With a lot of help I got the Third Ypres pages to B-class and then Messines 1917 to A-class; I'm having a rest from them to let my thinking settle and accumulate more sources (German and French sources in English are sparse). The trouble is that late July and August 1916 had a huge number of small attacks so I'm going to have to become even more laconic to avoid writing War and Peace. ;O) Anyway, thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Stalemate in Southern Palestine
Howdy! I don't strongly disagree with your comments, and wasn't really commenting on or judging the tags themselves. I saw your note at ANI, had a look and thought the tags should have a multi issues template at least. I didn't add any new tags. I will say, though (having had another look), there are sections and subsections in that article, some up to 10 paragraps long, with only 1 or 2 wikilinks. The first two sections might be okay, but you need to work on linking the others to make it seem more like a WP article and less like a uni essay. If you are going to shorten the longer parts, that will reduce the need for links in some places. The copy editing comes into it too. You might find all three issues can be easily resolved with one good copy-editing session. Stalwart 111  13:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Stalwart. I had listed it for a Guild copyedit before all the cuts were made. Now it doesn't make any sense as it stands, no info box etc. --Rskp (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Beersheba (1917), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Retreat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Battle of Gaza, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyderabad, Al Majdal and Battle of Beersheba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 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) 15:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

British and French administered areas (OETA)
Hi Roslyn, i take concern of your remark (WP:GF), though i corrected "Syrian territories" and "Palestinian territories" to standard "Ottoman Syria" - a common administrative name for the region in Ottoman times, including a number of vilayets and sanjaks (Zor, Beirut, Damascus, Mount Lebanon, Jerusalem and Aleppo). "Syrian territories" may be confused with the "French-administered Syria, while "Palestinian territories" obviously refer to post-1967 areas (most notably Palestinian Authority).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For reply and discussion see Greyshark09 talkpage. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 2 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) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Samakh
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Samakh 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 Tomobe03 -- 14:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Samakh
The article Battle of Samakh you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Samakh for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 10:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 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) 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Samakh
The article Battle of Samakh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Samakh for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 15:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Rafa
Please check the talk page for a note I left about a "Clarify" tag. Folklore1 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capture of Jenin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Capture of Jenin 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 Tomobe03 -- 14:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capture of Jenin
The article Capture of Jenin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Capture of Jenin for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capture of Jenin
The article Capture of Jenin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Capture of Jenin for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Tomobe03. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The World War Barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar, I appreciate in very much. I'd like to urge you to consider reviewing few GAs - I believe your article writing skill will make you a great and constructive reviewer too. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your encouragement - I've started the process. --Rskp (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ANZAC Mounted Division
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * This discussion has not yet been started. --Rskp (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves at ANZAC Mounted Division
Hello RoslynSKP, I've closed your most recent move request at this page. It's your third discussion there in less than three weeks, and fourth if we count the move review that endorsed the outcome of the first recent request. Simply re-opening these discussions so soon after the previous one closed isn't likely to result in a different consensus; in fact it's beginning to look like a refusal to get the point to the level of being disruptive. Please take my advice and back off the naming issue for a least a couple of months. There's no rush to get this right, and you only hurt your position by exhausting the participants.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just thought it was important to keep trying, as opposers seemed to be missing some important issues, which I outlined in this last move request. And someone raised the issue that because I had not done anything about the move for about a year, that I tacitly agreed with the all capitals version. I still believe there are valid issues which need to be calmly discussed, but will leave the issue for a couple of months. Thanks for taking the time and being so polite about this. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I didn't think you were intentionally being disruptive, but discussions like that just tend to make people less inclined to support whatever's being proposed. In the next go around, my suggestion would be to provide evidence that the change you're seeking is more common in the sources, for instance by providing a review of the sources for the topic to see which version they use.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
Advice on reviewing A and FA articles.

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Beersheba (1917)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Beersheba (1917) 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 Cerebellum -- 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR and removal of talk page cmts at Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917):
You have now done this three times and been reverted. Don't forget that WP:3RR applies to all editors. Equally as has been pointed out to you previously it is not considered appropriate to remove or edit other contributors comments per WP:TALKO. If you have a problem with the comment then I suggest asking someone outside of the discussion to review it and remove it if they think it is a personal attack (or taking it to ANI). I note you have said plenty more personal things to numerous other editors so cannot understand why the IP's criticism of the article (which was directed at Wikipedia in general, not a single editor) would be offensive to you. Anyway the IP actually had a go at me on my talkpage for the article, so maybe I should be the one that's offended. Anotherclown (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok that's now 4 times you have reverted. I did you the courtesy to ask you to stop before you breeched 3RR so do you really want to go down this path? Its really quite a trivial issue. Pls move on. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Anotherclown. I wasn't aware there was a procedure to follow when adding a tag. I should also point out that this is the umpteenth time you have cut the tag which I added in the first place. While I understand you are not remotely worried by the phrase, I do not hold your view. Does the 3RR not apply to you? --Rskp (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of cse it does - but if you check the edit history you will find that I have now reverted three times (2nd before my cmt to you) and Jim also reverted you once. You have now removed that cmt four times. Hence I cannot revert without breeching 3 RR and you have already done so. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown in lockstep again. Oh and its all been started by an IP, again. --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Beersheba (1917)
The article Battle of Beersheba (1917) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- 00:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Australian Light Horse
Your edit warring is pointless and unseemly. Please stop, and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ANZAC Mounted Division
I have reverted you changes to this article. As you keep adding to the lede minor events in the formation history or events that had no bearing on the division (Gallipoli). Or are against MOS. As already asked can any changes be discussed on the talk pages, if you are unwilling to do this I can only presume your edits are vandalism.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Properly cited information which clearly and concisely sets out the various names of the division and provides contextural information regarding the Gallipoli service and the move of the 3rd LHB cannot be considered to be vandalism, and your are in breech of WP:RBK guidelines. --Rskp (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have again reverted you edits to this article per WP:CITEVAR and as there is no need to cite the name of the division being the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division as this has never been in dispute. Unless you know different but to date I am not aware of any one challenging that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations are not provided only when information is in dispute. See the talk page of the article for discussion of cuts to citations supplied to the various names given to this division. --Rskp (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * These citations are justified, by the controversy surrounding the various names of the division. The article talk page is a much more appropriate place for a discussion of this issue, and I suggest you continue it there. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I presume your joking as so far you have failed to join in any discussions in the talk page.Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Precision when reverting and 3 RR (again)
In future pls be more precise rather than just reverting everything. If you had bothered to look there were a number typos which I also fixed with the edit you reverted repeatedly, here, here and here. I can see you have an issue with the use of the name Harry Chauvel (as opposed to his full name). It would be less disruptive if you only partially reverted (rather than reintroducing the typos) and state the reason for doing so on the talk page. Keith has proposed a compromise to the name issue (after you reverted him too) and I have now only edited the paragraph to remove a typo and add a comma (hardly controversial). I'll remind you again - you've reverted this three times now and two editors have disagreed with you. Do it again and you will breach WP:3RR (yet again). Anotherclown (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the article as it now stands. I don't know what all the fuss is about Anotherclown! Although, in future you should remember that official name has priority over common name. --Rskp (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What policy basis do you have to spt this? WP:COMMONNAME clearly states: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title....". This seems fairly clear to me. Anotherclown (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014
Hi, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Beersheba (1917)
The article Battle of Beersheba (1917) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- 02:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much indeed. I really appreciate your help with this GAR. All the best. --Rskp (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

First Battle of Gaza copy edit complete

 * Thanks very much. --Rskp (talk) 00:20, 6 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) 05:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hill 3039 at Amman.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hill 3039 at Amman.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As the file clearly states this photograph was taken from the 3rd volume of the New Zealand official history of the campaign and as such is a New Zealand Government publication. This book has also been published here so its definitely free. --Rskp (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Powles p.205amman.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Powles p.205amman.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As the file clearly states this map was taken from the 3rd volume of the New Zealand official history of the campaign and as such is a New Zealand Government publication. This book has also been published here so its definitely free. --Rskp (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Congratulations. It's not everyday you get a barnstar for WP:Civil POV pushing.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 07:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is another essay which I believe is more appropriate here. Its POV railroad. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? That being the case, here's a policy that applies to the pair of you: WP:BURDEN. Despite my three or four requests for proof that "'Turkish' is defamatory" neither of you have managed it. Might as well be asking a priest for proof of God – at this rate I'd at least get an attempt at an answer, instead of none at all. You might instead ask your friend here to review WP:DGF, if you feel your essay is the case, because they have yet to apply any.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. I believe that conduct of several editors in this content dispute is perfectly well explained in POV railroad essay.
 * "The pair of you" and "your friend here" is an association fallacy. I don't know who is RoslynSKP nor I have ever interacted with RoslynSKP before, so we are not pair nor friends.
 * Regarding WP:BURDEN, there was no particular reason to present sources for easily googleable sky is blue assertion about Turkish being also derogatory term. Please read the consensus at WP MILHIST which confirms that term "Turkish" "cannot be said to be Non-NPOV per se or inherently".
 * WP:BURDEN actually applies in your case. No evidence (sourced explanation) was presented for the specific context of ANZAC Mounted Division article which would be "clearly in favor of the term" Turkish. Despite I asked you multiple times to do so.
 * Anyway, the consensus is now reached at WP MILHIST "for interchangeability in one article" (ANZAC Mounted Division) and use of term Turkish only "where context is clearly in favor of the term". Please respect it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User_talk:Takabeg. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 06:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The text of my message read: "I remember your interest in the Battle of Romani and thought you might want to know about this dispute, which has recently been added to the Talk:Ottoman Empire page, here [11]. As a result of a MILHIST consensus Turkey is being wrongly imposed on more and more Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)" The editor changed Turkey to Ottoman Empire on 2 November 2010 so I thought that editor might be interested in the dispute. THAT IS NOT CANVASSING. --Rskp (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "As a result of a MILHIST consensus Turkey is being wrongly imposed on more and more Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles." is a personal opinion and is therefore biased not neutral. As you were already aware that he supports the term "Ottoman" he was a cherry-picked partisan. It's all there to read at WP:CANVASS, if you took the time instead of being a (Personal attack removed) you wouldn't make these mistakes. You're just digging your own grave, Roslyn, and leaving yourself few friends willing to bail you out.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 00:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You removed my so-called "personal attack" 37 minutes ago, why did it take you so long to attempt to WP:BAIT me? Also, as you appear to be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, you might try reading WP:Don't template the regulars. Your continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is counter-productive, and I do think you are being a proverbial WP:DICK. (rpa that too, hun, see if I care.) G'day.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 01:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Takabeg is an editor who made more than 35,000 edits, most of them related to Ottoman/Turkish topics. I think that in case of Takabeg one could safely assume good faith and interpret message to them as message to an editor "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic", "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" and "known for expertise in the field". All covered by "appropriate notification" section of WP:CANVASS. Therefore it is wrong to refer to Takabeg as "a cherry-picked partisan". Also, it could be seen as name-calling which is defined as direct rudeness by civility policy (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
In accordance with the mandatory notification protocol, this message is being left here to inform you that an Arbitration Committee case has been filed against you. The case has not been accepted, however a party to the case you are invited to add an explanation of your actions at Arbitration/Requests/Case. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Explanation

 * "Can someone please explain the process here. Is it just about the Ottoman Empire/Turkey issue? What happens next?"

It seems that the people who commented thee are going beyond the Ottom Empire/Turkey issue, so its no longer just about that. As to what happens next: At the moment, it appears that this is going to move forward. Sometime in the next...oh, 24 to 36 hours or so a proper case page will be opened. On that page the arbitrators will begin the evidence phase of the case by collecting statements from all involved parties and anyone interested in commenting. They will look through the entire body of evidence presented, taking consideration for issues such as low key policy and guideline violations, violations, of the five pillars, civility, consensus, and other such matters, then as a collective whole the arbitrators hearing the matter will discuss the case among themselves and return with their findings. Usually, findings from arbcom come with an explicit course of action in order to separate editors from other editors, editors from the material in question, or in some cases both. Whatever the arbitration committee decides is considered binding for all parties whether the parties in question like it or not, and once arbcom issues its ruling and imposes its sactions for the editors and articles in question administrators will be authorized to take any and all necessary actions to ensure that the arbitration committee's rulings are enforced to the fullest. Exactly how long the case will be open and what will happen when this case closes I can not say, but if you would like to get a better idea about the process and its results you can take a look at the signpost archives for previous arbitration reports, these will give you a better idea about what you can expect from the process. As always, if you have any questions, you can ask on the arbcom page or drop me a line and I'll answers as best I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Roslyn, I've added more evidence in my section, but in so doing I'm afraid I've screwed up part of your evidence claim, specifically the numbered diffs from MarcusBritish you referenced in the following two paragraphs:


 * "When an attempt was made to extend the consensus to other articles at Charge at Huj which I deleted saying correctly that the consensus did not extend to other articles See MarcusBritish's diffs 23, 24, and 25, mentioning that status quo ante bellum applied. A second attempt to extend the consensus was made at the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade article which were undone, MarcusBritish's diffs 26 and 27. None of these edits contravened the consensus which states "continuing use of 'Turkish' where context is clearly in favor of the term." Simply adding AustralianRupert's note cannot give that context.


 * I definitely did not use any non-neutral language in my post on the Ottoman Empire article's talk page alerting the wider community to the discussions at MILHIST and elsewhere. Specifically I definitely did not use the term "wrong" mentioned by MarcusBritish - see diff 28. Nor did I contravene any guidelines on Takabeg's talk page - see diff 29

In order to allow you sufficient time to address this issue I am leaving this note here so you can fix these links as soon as possible. In order to avoid a repeat of this, I would also recommend that you link to the examples in your section so that these diffs adjust for the addition or subtraction of evidence made by others. To do this, as you know, simply requires that you add a full url to the number diffs in question. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I did wondered what would happen. Can you explain more fully how these urls are added as I thought the diffs were urls! --Rskp (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its ok I get what you mean and am adding the links. --Rskp (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Roslyn, in this section Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute/Evidence, twice you have put the words "see MarcusBritish's diffs [links]" as well as a sub-heading with my username, yet when I open them they have nothing to do with me, they are reverts by yourself, Jim Sweeney, and Anotherclown. Might I suggest you simply put "see diffs [links]" without my username in there, because the wording makes no sense and only adds confusion. If it was because you originally had something like "see MarcusBritish's diffs 25, 26, 27" then you have replaced them with links due to the float issue discussed above, they are no longer "my" diffs, but yours, and the wording is superfluous and confusing, when the arbitrators start asking questions next week I really don't want to be explaining how you messed up your diffs.
 * As for Jim Sweeney's "404" error, this is what happens when you don't check links properly, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=582953877 is broken due to a missing "?" mid-URL, you need to replace it with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=582953877&oldid=582948230 as he did. You might want to consider fixing that too and just removing the pointless dead link comment, it only wastes everyone's time as it isn't really "evidence" of anything but carelessness.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute
Hi there. You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have been mentioned somewhere on the case talk pages, or you have submitted evidence in this case. Please be aware that the evidence phase for this case closes at 00:01, 09 December 2013 (UTC), which is just over one day from now. If you have not submitted evidence and would like to do so, please do so before the deadline. If you have submitted evidence and would like to amend or expand it, please also do so before the deadline. Thank you! AGK [•] 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence
Hello, RoslynSKP. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1722 words and 106 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages). On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 06:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Will get cutting. :) Glad the diffs are not too bad. --Rskp (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, AGK has granted you an extension to 1750 words. --Rschen7754 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give me any more time to take advantage of this surprise extension? --Rskp (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You will have to contact AGK. --Rschen7754 21:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Convert
I think it was my suggestion that be used in some articles. FYI, that advice is now obsolete as convert has been switched to use the module, so plain should now be used. I am currently changing all articles from convert/q to convert. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Don't worry about the ones I've worked on, I'll do it. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 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) 00:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Decision proposed in Ottoman naming dispute
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, or you have commented or been mentioned on the case pages. I am the drafting arbitrator for this case. I have written the draft decision and proposed it for adoption at the proposed decision case page. The committee will now vote on the final decision for this dispute. If you wish to bring any information or comments to the committee's attention, the proposed decision talk page is monitored by the arbitrators active on this case. Thank you, AGK  [•] 20:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, just dropping a note to remidn you that any comment you have about the proposed decision of the Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case, you must leave it at the talk page of the Proposed decision. The Main page is only to be edited by arbitrators or clerks. I have moved the two comments you left there to the talk page. Feel free to add more there as you please. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK sorry about that. --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry :) — ΛΧΣ  21  02:14, 19 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

Battle of Magdhaba
Hi, I was just wondering if I could talk to you further about the Anzac/ANZAC difference.
 * "After serving dismounted in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) during the Gallipoli campaign, the light horse and mounted rifles brigades became part of the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force."
 * "The division is variously referred to in sources as the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, (abbreviated to the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division), the ANZAC Mounted Division, and the Anzac Mounted Division by the Australian and New Zealand histories of the campaign."

According to Chauvel in his letter, it's referred to as "A. & N.Z. Mounted Division"; according to Australian War Memorial records (which are publicly accessible), "ANZAC Mounted Division" is prominently used. From the Australian War Memorial site regarding the Battle of Magdhaba: "Magdhaba, a village located in the northern Sinai desert, was the scene of an action fought on 23 December 1916 when Turkish forces blocking the route to Palestine were attacked by Major General Harry Chauvel's ANZAC Mounted Division, which had the Imperial Camel Corps attached. Success in this hard fought action was secured through a resolute assault with the bayonet by the 1st Light Horse Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Charles Cox, just as Chauvel ordered his force to withdraw. A mounted charge by the 10th Light Horse to secure vital water supplies nearby was also a vital contributory factor in the victory. This action, combined with the success at Rafa on 9 January 1917, opened the way for the final expulsion of the Turks from Sinai."1 It also used as ANZAC here too.2

Thus, I believe ANZAC Mounted Division is the proper usage or it should be changed to A. & N.Z. Mounted Division (as per use by its commanding officer).

Imperator Talk 02:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, its a real doozy isn't it! The official name is in fact the "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division." But that is quite a mouthful hence the abbreviation to "A & NZ Mounted Division" in the British official history of the campaign. The war diaries tend to block capital all names of places etc. hence the Australian War Memorial using the block capitals form of the noun for the name of the mounted division. The trouble with this block capitals form is that it can easily be confused with the ANZAC, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which served during the Gallipoli Campaign. It was the surviving Australian light horsemen and most of the New Zealand mounted riflemen (one NZ regiment ended up on the Western Front) who formed the Anzac Mounted Division in early 1916, along with reinforcements. Hence the unofficial name of the division which is and was widely used, including one trooper from the 3rd Light Horse Brigade who lamented the loss of the "Anzac Mounted Division" name, when the Imperial Mounted Division was formed and his brigade transferred to it in 1917.

Within Wikipedia the use of the official name would be unwieldy and create confusion with the Australian Mounted Division, which the Imperial Mounted Division became a few months later. Within the Desert Mounted Corps there were three divisions, the oldest, the Anzac Mounted Division, the Australian Mounted Division and the youngest, the Yeomanry Mounted Division. For clarity and consistency with the names of the divisions which make up the mounted corps the noun is at the top of the heap. --Rskp (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Upon review of your father's war record, I see that it is stamped "Anzac Md Div", so I believe you can disregard my above post as the AIF enlistment personnel didn't capitalise it, after its formation (their designation is the most important for reference, I think). Odd to see so many contradictory records though, as you say... Perhaps it is modern usage and the influence of the Australian War Memorial resources that ANZAC seems to always be capitalised. I also had a relative (Great Grandfather) who served in WW1, albeit mostly in the Western Front (Service Record: link). Also, I was just finishing this when you finished your comment; upon reflection, I agree with you about the name. Edit Ninja. :P

Imperator Talk 04:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Although he was a reinforcement of the divisional ASC, my dad never served in the Anzac Mounted Division. He languished in Moascar for about six months before being attached to the ASC of the 3rd Light Horse Brigade as a driver, after the brigade had joined the Imperial Mounted Division. Interesting that the name of the Anzac Mounted Division, which was such a successful unit, is so complicated. I would be glad if you could revert your last edit to the Magdhaba article so that the noun can win out! :) All the best, --Rskp (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. It's done. Thanks a lot. Happy festive season. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Sweeney (talk • contribs) 08:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads up
I am filing my first ever arbitration enforcement paperwork over at the WP:AE page, and part of that process is a mandate to drop you a line to notify you that I've mentioned you at WP:AE. The subject there concerns your ANI thread postings and milhist discussion, which I am attempting to see arbcom enforce. Honestly, though, I have no idea what they will do once we both get there, so it'll be interesting to see how this works for us. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Roslyn, I would be interested to hear a response from you to this question I've asked at AE. You are not obliged to say anything, but it may be in your interest. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request
Please see amendment request. NE Ent 23:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation your ArbCom editing restrictions relating to Turkish military history, as discussed at WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  11:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Because the block is for misconduct relating to Turkish military history, it activates your ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I, as provided for in the Committee's decision.  Sandstein  11:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this extend to my userpage and userpage articles under construction? --Rskp (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my view (which is not authoritative), the ban does not extend to your user space, as it refers to "articles", by which we commonly understand only pages in the main namespace.  Sandstein   12:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Request
--Rskp (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as the appeal was directed at me as the blocking admin, I decline it also. I agree with JamesBWatson's assessment and add that in your edit at you did in effect change "Turkish" to "Ottoman" by inserting the text "While it is true the major element were Turkish soldiers, other elements also fought in the Ottoman Army", and making other additions that, in effect, make the article text into an argument why "Ottoman" rather than "Turkish" ought to be the correct appellation. This violates your restriction, and - like this appeal - indicates to me that you either do not understand the restrictions that are now binding on you or that you do not intend to comply with them. For these reasons, the block is maintained.  Sandstein  12:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I accept your interpretation of my edit and the block, which ends on 16 January. Will the subject block for 9 months continue? If so, does it affect the two articles in my userspace and the three articles coming up for GAR? --Rskp (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't answer this authoritatively, as I'm not the person who imposed the ban. If you want definitive answers, you must request clarification from the Committee. The duration of the topic ban is defined in the Committee's decision. As mentioned above, I am of the view that the ban applies only to article content, not to userspace, talk pages and other discussions. However, other administrators might conceivably take a different view.  Sandstein   10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request
I have been aware of this discussion, but had not taken part because I simply don't understand much of what is discussed. Now I can't as its also blocked. I am just an editor trying to get through this. Until this block there has never been any indication that other edits which did not change the appellations would also be violations. I did not set out to argue for one above the other, and still resist that interpretation, but to clearly state what the note only alludes to. Nick-D's characterisation that it could "only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1" is completely wrong, and needs to be appreciated in the light of every other comment this editor has made since first contact. If the words of the Arbitration decision can be taken at face value then restriction 1 has not been violated as the appellations were not changed. If a much broader interpretation was implied then some indication of this should have been given to me.

I was about to log off when I got the link to where I was relieved to find Carcharoth's attempt to put the complexities of the appellation question into some perspective, which MILHIST discussion completely failed to do. Mention must also be made of Neotarf's note in Carcharoth's link which claims articles were written by someone from a list of battle names, none of which were used in the three articles referred to and the lists of citations and references clearly demonstrate the error of claiming the articles were based on this one source. --Rskp (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be copying this to the page shortly. --Rschen7754 07:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Third Battle of Gaza
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Third Battle of Gaza 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 ChrisGualtieri -- 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ChrisGaultieri, I am sorry but I am currently blocked and am not able to respond to your review. --Rskp (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Rafa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Rafa 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 ChrisGualtieri -- 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ChrisGualtieri, I sorry but am currently blocked and cannot respond to your review. --Rskp (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted both reviews (this one and the one above), and will try and deal with any points that can be easily fixed. Alternatively, if you feel like delaying the reviews until about 15th January, that would also work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)