User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 19 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Theme for 2016
[1]. It's going to be a cracker. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ha ha, seems appropriate for a lot of situations. Anotherclown (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter Cawthorn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North West Frontier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Impostor?
93.144.91.232 Could this be another ride of our pro-Italian impostor?Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Gday, certainly they appear to be editing in a similar topic area and given the previous level of disruption I think this warrants scrutiny at least. That said, unless I'm mistaken, unlike the previous confirmed socks this one actually geolocates to Italy so it might just be a good faith IP with an interest in the topic. We might need to just wait and see if a pattern emerges which indicates similarities with the previous blocked accounts in which case an SPI case could be raised if necessary. I'll try to keep an eye on things. Thanks Keith. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm having second thoughts that it might be Wiki-inexperience rather than malice.Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- No worries. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm having second thoughts that it might be Wiki-inexperience rather than malice.Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
|
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Have you thought of running yourself? I am sure Nick-D or Harry would sponsor you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
- No worries at all. Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be pleased to nominate/co-nominate you if you're ever interested. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Gday Nick. Thank you for the offer but I'm not thinking about it at the moment as I would not be able to devote the time and energy to it that it deserves. (I've not mentioned it before but I have spent the last year in rehabilitation following spinal surgery after a training accident and have now returned to study prior to being medically discharged, that and I have a little monster of a toddler and another one on the way. In short my dance card is full, I'm low on patience and sleep, my wife's intolerance of me and my various odours seems to grow in direct proportion to her size, and my usual coping strategy—booze—clashes with my meds). It might, however, be something I consider in the future when things settle down though. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be pleased to nominate/co-nominate you if you're ever interested. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
|
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
2016 GA Cup
 Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"liberation of saigon"
It would have taken less than a minute to find the references yourself. BrxBrx (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nonetheless thank you for adding them. Anotherclown (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 1
Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville. 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) 10:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorted. Anotherclown (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Wordwraps
I've been in the habit of {{nowrap|12,000 casualties}} no wrapping numbers like this but have been looking at Template:Nowrap and [2] which aren't specific about numbers. Should I bother? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Gday Keith. I am not aware of any MOS requirement for its use (or otherwise), nor am I
unaware of any general community consensus (or otherwise). It seems uncontroversial to me but as you know people around here can sometimes have some strange and strongly held view points about the seemingly trivial so I could be way off. I can see some potential for it to prevent possible misunderstanding for a subset of readers in the event of the figures being separated due to different browsers displaying text differently etc, so I think if you are willing to put the effort in to use it there could be some benefit for someone in it. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)- I copied it from someone else ages ago but I've noticed that hardly anyone else does so wondered if it's really necessary.Keith-264 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops typo in my last. And that was before I started drinking and watching the cricket... Anotherclown (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I copied it from someone else ages ago but I've noticed that hardly anyone else does so wondered if it's really necessary.Keith-264 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 2
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews
|
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 17 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
I noticed you welcomed someone to WikiProject Military History. So you may be the person to ask. I'm looking for some help re-creating an article that was deleted for violating copyright. I can probably locate the information but I wouldn't know how to write the article correctly.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Gday Vchimpanzee. I'm not really familiar with USAF topics but of cse would be happy to look over a draft and give you some cmts re: development etc if you would like. As a suggestion I believe User:Lineagegeek has written extensively in this area (i.e. USAF) and might be able to assist if you ask. Also I'd suggest having a look at the articles of other USAF bases to get an idea of what is generally included (a place to start might be Category:Bases of the United States Air Force). Anotherclown (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I rarely edit bases, rather than units, but the basic references are available online. For bases in the United States, it is Mueller, Robert (1989). Air Force Bases, Vol. I, Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6.. Template:Infobox military installation would be a good framework to start Myrtle Beach Air Force Base with. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I should have remembered this was not WikiProject American Military History.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I rarely edit bases, rather than units, but the basic references are available online. For bases in the United States, it is Mueller, Robert (1989). Air Force Bases, Vol. I, Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6.. Template:Infobox military installation would be a good framework to start Myrtle Beach Air Force Base with. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 3
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[4] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Pearse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorted. Anotherclown (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Anotherclown, it's the ghost of 2014 here. My aim is to return this article to Good Article status and I notice you had the most constructive comments when it was delisted (in my sabbatical). Although it will need some independent editor to run the GAN itself, I was hoping you may be able to check it over and see if we can come up with a worklist for what needs to be done. Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Grandiose: Gday again. Certainly a worthy goal to get the article up to GA again given the importance of the event. Unfortunately I am no expert on the topic itself so couldn't comment with any authority in regards to content and coverage etc. From my point of view though the main issue with the article is the amount of unreferenced content (there are still four "citation needed" tags and the "Timeline" and "Political parties and organizations" sections are both completely unreferenced). If these could be dealt with I think it would be a significant improvement. Also technically the lead should be no more the four paragraphs (not five as current) per MOS:LEAD (but that is a very minor nitpick). All the best with the project. Anotherclown (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
COIN discussion about Vicente S. Santos, Jr.
Hi Anotherclown. I pinged you in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Vicente S. Santos, Jr., but am also posting here to let you know as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gday and thanks. Sorry I don't have much time at the moment for Wiki. I've added a cmt there now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Understand. We are all volunteers and all get busy. It's at COIN now, so the editors who frequent that page will help straighten things out one way or another. FWIW, I didn't undo the last revert even though I think it would be justified to do so per WP:NPOV, etc. and brought the matter to COIN instead. If, by chance, you do decide to do so, then I suggest adding Template:uw-3RR to his user talk page, just so he's at least aware of WP:3RR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes that's probably for the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Understand. We are all volunteers and all get busy. It's at COIN now, so the editors who frequent that page will help straighten things out one way or another. FWIW, I didn't undo the last revert even though I think it would be justified to do so per WP:NPOV, etc. and brought the matter to COIN instead. If, by chance, you do decide to do so, then I suggest adding Template:uw-3RR to his user talk page, just so he's at least aware of WP:3RR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Finals
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [5]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [6]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Maryang San 1951.png
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Maryang San 1951.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the note. I've responded as requested. Anotherclown (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, whilst I disagree with your interpretation of fair use (and indeed the article went through both a GA and A class review where the image was considered acceptable to use), I have now drafted a crude map myself to replace it so it is no longer req'd. As such I requested it be deleted myself as {{db self}}, which has now since concerned. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Re. Battle of Thermopylae ww2
Hi Anotherclown, Thankyou for your response. I have checked on the copyright of the text I copied and as it is an educational government resource it says the following: "This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial, educational and educational institutional use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved." Would you be able to revert the page back to what it was when I changed it (if this is all fine of course :D). Is there anything else I need to do? Cheers, HistorianAustralia HistorianAustralia (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gday. Thank you for the note, however, the confirmation that the material is copyrighted (per your extract above of the site notice from ww2australia.gov.au which you provided), only makes it even more clear that we cannot copy and paste it onto Wikipedia. This is per the policy which is located at WP:COPYVIO. If you wish to use the information contained at ww2australia.gov.au to improve the Battle of Thermopylae (1941) article (or wish to use any copyrighted material in any article for that mater on Wikipedia) you need to re-write it in your own words and provide the source as a citation. My interpretation is that nothing in the www2australia.gov.au site notice prevents this from being done (just like any other source, such as books or journal articles etc), although I can understand your train of thought. The wording "You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only..." does not prevent you from rewriting it completely and using it as a source as part of the normal process of researching and writing about a topic, and indeed this is what Wikipedia requires for it to be acceptable for inclusion here. Just to be clear though it is acceptable to quote small sections / key information from a source, although it needs to be appropriately attributed and should be used sparingly (pls see the policy at WP:QUOTE). Also pls be aware that issues of copyright violation are taken seriously on Wikipedia and editors that do not comply with the policy can face sanctions (such as being blocked from editing etc). Hopefully my explanation is clear but if not I'm happy to continue to discuss. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Anotherclown, Thank you so much for your reply. It has cleared a lot up! I will go ahead and do as you suggest when I get around to it :) Thanks heaps, HistorianAustralia
Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, an article which you edited. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)