User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Hutton

Hi mate, I see the triangle from hell has been at it again... Probably simpler to just remove the FUR, which is the magnet for his activities. It shouldn't need it if AWM is a legit source -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have just done that so it should hopefully be sorted now. Cheers Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Great minds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Katia

You have changed the subheading 'The attack' to 'Battle' and I'm wondering why, as these engagements were too small in scale to amount to a battle.--Rskp (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gday. This is the standard heading used by MILHIST articles per WP:MILMOS/C. Equally "the" should not be used in a heading per WP:MOS. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you interested in being a Milhist co-ord?

Hi, mate, I am writing to encourage you to consider taking on the role as a co-ordinator of the Military history project. The elections will be held around September/October. If you are interested, you can find out more information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator. Also, if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to try to answer them for you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Knocked-off early today for a change which was great so I bought a six-pack and tried to write a bit more on my next project. The beer is good but the writing isn't unfortunately... Thinking about heading up to Somerset this weekend to try and catch a couple of Bass or Silver Perch (lets face it blokes like us would settle for a few Tilarpia though). But its not much fun on your own so I'll probably just go to the gym instead. Anyway how are you getting on down there?
Thanks for the offer but I will be giving co-ord a miss. Of course MILHIST needs people willing to do this thankless job and I am grateful to those that do it, but I am going to go jack again, at least for another term. It is always going to be busy at work, plus I like being able to choose my level of engagement with wiki and the interesting people one encounters here. It is meant to be a distraction from my mental illness, not something that makes it worse! Sorry to disappoint of course though.
While you have done an excellent job as co-ord and have done a lot to advance the project I think you are right when you say that it is probably time for you to move on. I know you enjoy contributing to wiki and I certainly hope you continue to do so (after all who else is going to write those battalion histories?), but I think being a co-ord has probably detracted from your enjoyment and has resulted in quite a deal of unnecessary frustration. There is no shame in taking a break for a bit and just chipping in the odd article here and there when work allows. Please say hello to the little one for me. Take care. Anotherclown (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I can understand that. I had an EKO also, but it didn't eventuate. The boss went early and gave me permission to do so, but then I felt guilty and decided to keep working on a couple of minutes and admin insts that needed to be finished. Spent an hour in the gym this morning, though, which was good. I just spent four hours doing my tax, though...I'm very bad at it. Hopefully, they won't be too harsh on me. With luck I might get enough back to get myself a six pack at the end of September (when I get back from course). Thankfully the little one is now asleep - she was very tired from a big day. Anyway, good luck with the fishing; there's not much in the way of it down here, unfortunately. Hoping to check out somewhere during Christmas stand down, that is if I'm not doing "endless summer of duty officer" (which may happen given my current loc). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Butting in on this old thread, I'll be happy to support you if you change your mind and decide to give coordship a go, AC. If Somerset is "up", does that mean you're in Devon, Bristol or maybe Cornwall? - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dank. Actually Lake Somerset, near Brisbane, Queensland. I would love to go to England one day though! While I appreciate the !vote of confidence I will have to politely decline. I know the co-ords do a very important job on MILHIST and I would dearly like to help out more than I do, but I'm not sure my marriage would cope with it. Selfishly I'm hoping that someone else is going to step forward, however unlikely that is. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I think we've got plenty of people running this time ... okay, thanks for your tireless work at A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Apr–Jun 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski layout

I think the bot has failed me. On Battle of Fort Pulaski, it makes inadvertent vandalism. Instead of a coherently laid out, magazine-like webpage that would be familiar to general readers, there is now on my laptop view a forced a white space hole at the top of the article that shows about 6x6, 36 square inches at the header “background” and a 3x3 9-square inch hole to the right of the align=right perrow=2 gallery “fort Pulaski under siege”. Is a modification from the bot-fix permissible? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to jump in, the problem may be that the kind of formatting you're attempting here is unusual for Wikipedia articles, and as a result it's clashing with elements of the default templates (particularly the infobox) and the bot is unable to fix this. I quite like what you're attempting to do here, but it might need a fair amount of manual work. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Does the bot automatically troll, or can I get away with a local exeption that might stick? An alternate might be to push six inches of text above the pics and align right pic and gallery, but I like them on top the best. Maybe swap out photo with Leslie print? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello TheVirginiaHistorian. Sometimes these format issues are browser specific, but I also have the same problem when I view this page on my computer. I really wish I could help but unfortunately I do not know very much about wiki markup. If this has occurred due to one of the edits I did yesterday please just undo the edit (although I think it was like that when I got there). Alternatively User:Frietjes seems to do some work with templates so you might attempt to contact them and see if they can assist. Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's good to find a bit of "we're all in this together". Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Pakchon

Wu Xingquan is the commander of the 39th Army (or 39th Corps depends on how you translate it). It is very rare for Chinese military writing to discuss the command decision of division level commander or below (maybe due to the lack of independent decision making when compared with the western armies?). Also pictures does not exist in Chinese sources because this battle is just too small/insignificant from Chinese POV. Jim101 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added all I know about this battle from Chinese POV in the main article...I hope that helps. Jim101 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, I'll incorporate this into the completed version. Thanks Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

German involvement in the Spanish Civil War

No problem. There's no rush – I'm unsure whether I'll be able to find the time to complete the items mentioned in the next two days, but certainly having the article on hold for two weeks or so is not at all problematic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm back tomorrow night (but have access to the net tonight whilst I'm in transit). I have updated the review and done another copy-edit. Just one more issue as far as I can tell before this can be promoted. Once again apologies for the delay. Anotherclown (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job. Can I interest you in expanding any of my new Spanish civil war battle stubs?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has taken issue with the article, as you may know if you've still got it watchlisted. Since such serious allegations would undermine the credibility of the review, you may wish to comment on the talk page. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:NZ artillery 25 pounder Korea 1951 (AWM HOBJ2238).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NZ artillery 25 pounder Korea 1951 (AWM HOBJ2238).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image was kept and moved to Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Chinese PWs Battle of Kapyong 24 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chinese PWs Battle of Kapyong 24 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image was kept and moved to Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:American Sherman tank Battle of Kapyong 23 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:American Sherman tank Battle of Kapyong 23 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image was kept. Anotherclown (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:C Company 3RAR occupying Hill Salmon 16 April 1951 (AWM P01813).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:C Company 3RAR occupying Hill Salmon 16 April 1951 (AWM P01813).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image was kept and moved to Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Horse in Korea.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Horse in Korea.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added. Image kept. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1st Filipino Infantry Regiment

Thanks for the CAR. I have made changes and replied within the CAR; see here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

HMAS Canberra (LHD 01)

Just FYI, there are several reliable sources suggesting either pennant number for the ship...see the article's talk page Talk:Canberra class landing helicopter dock for more detail if you're curious. -- saberwyn 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Saberwyn. I did a quick google search before I reverted the IP and only came up with sources using LHD 01 for Canberra. Interesting and confusing... As an aside I always thought Australia would have been a fine name for one of them, but I guess unless we ever get another aircraft carrier we will never see another HMAS Australia. Anotherclown (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Operation Blaze

I wonder if you have anything that could improve Operation Blaze a little. None of my sources have anything on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. There is a bit of material in the official history, which has about four pages on it. I'll add it to my to do list! Anotherclown (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to have been a fairly minor action, although there is also a little bit in the British official history as well. I'll see what I can add. Anotherclown (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Pakchon

Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work with this. I'll get a wriggle on with the GA review! Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Nick. It's been a while between DYKs for me - been a bit put off by the requirement to review another nomination to be honest (wasn't confident in how to do it). As a result Battle of Kujin, Battle of Chongju (1950) and Operation Bribie all missed out. Finally gave it a shot this time though! Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That was probably the most clear cut GA review pass of any I've reviewed - great work. I don't see any barriers to this passing a A class review, and you may also want to consider shooting for FA status. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review Nick. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Battle of Pakchon a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Too easy, I have now started Talk:Operation Slapstick/GA1. Great name BTW (seriously). Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Will add on here as it mentioned. THANK YOU for the review all done I believe. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Savin

Hello! Concerning your stance in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_Savin, might you reconsider? I have found a number of additional sources concerning this man and have begun revising the article accordingly. Please note that he is also covered in international sources that I have not yet cited. In German, for example, see Historische Zeitschrift: Volume 113 (1968): "dem nach 1812 in Sara- tow angesiedelten und 1894 im Alter von 126 Jahren verstorbenen Nicolas Savin..." In French, for example, see Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine: Volume 19 (1970): "Il s'agit de Nicolas Savin, né en 1768, officier de hussards à la Grande Armée, fait prisonnier à la Bérézina..." And still other English language sources exist, such as History today: Volume 22 (1962): "He was a French hussar, Nicolas Savin, who was taken prisoner by the cossacks of Platoff at the Berezina and who is..." That he is written about in multiple published sources in French, English, and German in both the 1800s and 1900s and even got the notice of the Tsar seems sufficiently notable. I do not know if you watch list AfDs, hence why I am messaging you here with this update. Thank you for your time and consideration. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have responded now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_Savin. Anotherclown (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping an open-mind! Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --24.154.173.243 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem and thank you for being so polite during what can sometimes be a very frustrating process. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Anotherclown,

Many thanks for helping to correct my recent entry in 'Landing at Nadzab". I am new to this. I cannot find a place to 'reply' to you other than this, which should get to you anyway. Cheers from a fellow Oz. J.H. Ozistry (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries and thank you. Wikipedia can sometimes be an unwelcoming experience for a new editor given the complexity of our rules. Hopefully we haven't scarred you off yet though! If you have any questions about further contributions you might be interested in making please drop me a line. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

KC Review

Thanks for your review! The lists are sortable and the order is not predictable. I was advised before to err on overlinking. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Spanish Civil War ACR

Do you mind me breaking up your points? If you would, could you possibly number them so I can refer to them individually? (Sorry for the late reply, it would seem ACRs aren't watchlisted (or it was somehow unwatchlisted).) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine. I have done that now. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Jolly good!

How nice to see that the wiki-world has NOT completely disintegrated into chaos in my absence. What a relief! Pdfpdf (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS/C and Mughar Ridge

Anotherclown, I've undone your edit because there is nothing in WP:MILMOS/C which sanctions it. Your insistence on the standard heading, which is most often qualified in many articles, does not make sense in this case, it does not improve this Good Article and is misleading. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"The article can be structured along these lines:
1.The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously?
2.The prelude. What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
3.A description of the battle. What tactics were used?
4.The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?"
Not sure how that is misleading at all and to say that there "nothing in WP:MILMOS/C which sanctions it" is clearly wrong. I agree that it isn't a rule, but you will find the majority of our articles follow this layout for a reason. These headings allow us to follow a standard format which covers the main points in an encylopaedic manner.
IMO there is much to commend the articles that you have written so far, including Mughar Ridge, and I am certainly glad that you take a keen interest in Australian history, as indeed do I. That said I think there is also considerable room to improve these articles, and in particular their compliance with the MOS and your overuse of headings. However, if you are not prepared to allow others to assist in this then I'm going to give it a rest for now. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Operation Eagle

Hi, regarding this edit, can you explain what you mean about the white space? Is it something that appears with certain browsers? In Firefox it all looked fine to me.—Biosketch (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes this may be a browser specific issue. I'm using a very old version of IE so the way a page displays on my screen might be different to Firefox. Essentially the issue with the placement of External images box was (on my screen) was that it was bunched up directly under the map which pushed all the text down below it, leaving a large amount of white space between the section heading and the start of the paragraph. By moving the External images box further down in the section it didn't bunch up with the map and therefore there is no gap between the section heading and the text. Hope this makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, thanks for the prompt reply.—Biosketch (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changing the date Parachute Brigade, now an airborne division arriving in 1545 Palestine would have been a sight to see. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it would! Cheers Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

J Force

Hi, mate, just wondering if you might be able to dig something out of your library for this: J Force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep I'll see what I can dig up. Oxford Companion to NZ Mil History should have something for sure. How's the flipper? Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, it feels ok at the moment, but as soon as I lift anything the pain is pretty bad. Will probably need a scan when I get back from Melbourne. With luck it's just a strain (swelling is going down) and not a break. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thats a plus at least. I buggered my wrist many years back playing indoor soccer if you remember. Never got it checked so no idea if I broke something in it but it hurt for months and I couldn't even use it to stack those bloody boxes at the boxology factory. Had to use my forearm, which was a bit tricky to say the least. To this day my left wrist is substancially weaker than the right and makes a "clicking noise". Not to mention still hurts when I do push ups! Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding those refs. Looks good. If only it had an image. I will have a hunt around, but I'm not really sure about NZ copyright. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey I finally finished a draft of Battle of Yongju, pretty large expansion but I don't think its eligible for DYK because it was DKY'd by the editor that created the original article a couple of years ago. Is that right? Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, mate, yes that is my understanding. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh well. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to jump in on the J Force article, you could add some background on the discussions about sending the 2nd NZ Division to the Pacific after the fighting in Europe ended (see chapter 12 of Italy Volume II : From Cassino to Trieste, and particularly from pages 574 onwards). Interestingly, it looks like the intention was for the division to form part of the Commonwealth Corps in the invasion of Japan and it would have trained for this role in the United States! Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, Nick, that would be a good addition. I will have a look at adding something like that when I get back to Adelaide next week when I will have a bit more time for Wiki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Busy !@#$%^&* aren't you! Anotherclown (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries and good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Featrued article candidacies and A-Class reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey Anotherclown, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Ball GA review

Hi mate, hope George and I didn't confuse things too much with some recent mods to this article. I believe we're all done now so pls feel free to proceed with your review when ready -- appreciate you taking on our little collaboration... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ian. Thanks for the note, I've added my review now. When I pencilled myself in for the review I forgot I had a duty which would keep me away from home for a bit. Ended up getting stuck at work for a couple of days which delayed things a little. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks Anotherclown for helping to promote Battle of Yongju to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some one a pat on the back today. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Anotherclown (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of articles you might be able to provide some refs for

Hi, mate, I had a look at the WWI special project list and found a couple that you might be able to provide some refs for: Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I and Military history of New Zealand in World War I. Both have a reasonable amount of content but almost no citations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've been working on 4th Brigade (Australia). There are a few "citation needed" tags that I'm hoping that you might be able to help me with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking but I'm not having much luck... Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, don't work too hard on it. I vaguelly remember there being something in the Palazzo 2002 work about the 4th Task Force stuff, but can't remember. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

RAADC

Hi, mate, just for a break from infantry battalions, I've done a bit of work expanding the Royal Australian Army Dental Corps article. I wonder if you could have a look through the Dennis source and add a few more citations from it, if possible. The World War II section is probably a bit light, too. I wonder if the Medical volume of the World War II official history might have anything worth adding. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Very litte in Dennis I'm afraid. The official history (Walker) has about 4 pages, some of which you already covered. I think I've added what you were missing though. Unfortunately its still a little sparse. Hope it helps though. Anotherclown (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, mate, I appreciate it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Passchendaele

Passchendaele page: Thanks for your scrutiny of my efforts. What do you think of it so far?Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Keith. No worries at all, these pages are looking quite good in my opinion - especially Battle of Passchendaele itself. This is an extensive work and a massive undertaking. Its good to see someone giving them the attention they deserve. Have you considered taking it to GA review at some stage? Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm a beginner at doing more than writing the odd paragraph and moaning about people starting sentences with 'and' so I think it would be premature, as there's still much to do; finding out what GA is and how to do a dash instead of a hyphen for starters ;O). I think Menin Road needs a page and some of the material on the main page needs moving to the ones about particular operations (like Menin). I'd like to do something detailed about attacking and defensive developments at 3rd Ypres and how they fit into the trends either side. It's much clearer now that there was a convergence of methods and equipment - echeloned defence met echeloned attack, 'quiet' periods between attacks got more and more 'noisy' so the utility of position (no longer really 'trench') warfare to the Germans diminished considerably, hence staying on the defensive in 1918 wasn't really practical alternative (see Rupprecht's comments on the Cambrai page about there being no quiet sectors anywhere where tank operations were feasible after Cambrai) so this bit feeds into the strategic-economic context of the war. My next move is to try to be systematic about the air war over Ypres. As usual sources about the German side written in English are rarer so I'm stuck with the RAF and Canadian OHs and a couple of monographs from Archives org for the German side. Tally ho!Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There is certainly no shortage of opportunities to contribute so I wish you the best of luck! Re the dashes - you can install a script which will make this an automated process. Have a look at this if you are interested: User talk:GregU/dashes.js. Anotherclown (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll give it a try - Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Spanish Civil War FAC

As a commenter on the ACR for this article, and with the FAC in need of further input, I would welcome you to comment there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To do list

Hi, mate, hope you are doing okay. I've made myself a proper to do list: here. It will take forever, and might never be complete. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An impressive list. Have you thought of adding current Special Forces? Also you could include current and former artillery units and Light Horse regiments, which would of course keep you busy for ever. What can I say? I'm lost for words... I feel physically sick and more sad than ever. I'm going to bed now but I doubt I will sleep. Take care my friend. Anotherclown (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sleep didn't come easy: woke early and hit the gym, it made me feel a bit better although it's hard not to feel useless in the circumstances. Re: the list, sure, I will add those units too, although I suspect that some of them might be impossible to get to B class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If you get a chance, could you take a look at 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment? There are a couple of citation needed tags that I'm hunting refs for, which I'm hoping you might have something for. I plan to expand it a little further over the next week or so. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Gday, I've added a couple of citations now. Hopefully this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, that's great. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Bryce Duffy served with us in MTF-1 and I still remember the day I heard about this. For some reason it seems important to me now that I write this here. Pls don't reply I'm just writing this for me. Lest We Forget. Anotherclown (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Gemas

Hi, mate, you might be able to help clear up a query I've placed on the talk page of Battle of Gemas. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, replied there now. Well spotted. Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

23rd Battalion

Hi, mate, just wondering if you could check Kuring or Palazzo for the bde and div assignments of the 23rd Bn during the interwar years? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Gday, ok heres what I have:
  • Kuring, Red coats to cams, p. 90 (Table 7: Infantry Battalions of the 1st AIF):
    • 23rd Battalion (Victoria) part of 6th Brigade, 2nd Division
  • Kuring, Red coats to cams, p. 110 (Table 9: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1924):
    • 23rd Battalion part of 3rd Military District (Victoria) - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
  • Kuring, Red coats to cams, p. 111 (Table 10: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1934):
    • 23rd Battalion (The City of Geelong Regiment)/21st Battalion (The Victoria Rangers) part of the 3rd Military District (Victoria) - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
  • Kuring, Red coats to cams, p. 113 (Table 11: Infantry Battalions of the Australian Military Forces, 1939):
    • 23rd Battalion (The City of Geelong Regiment)/21st Battalion (The Victoria Rangers) part of the 3rd Military District (Victoria) - 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 15th Infantry Brigades
  • Kuring, Red coats to cams, p. 215 (Table 12: Australian Infantry Battalion and Units on Active Service During World War II):
    • 23rd Battalion not listed (2/23rd 2nd AIF is but not a Milita Bn by that designation).
  • Pallazo, The Australian Army, p. 68 (Table 3.2 Organisation of the 1st AIF, 1918)
    • 23rd Battalion part of the 6th Brigade, 2nd Division
  • Pallazo, The Australian Army, p. 102 (Table 4.5 Organisation of the army, 1928, major formations and units)
    • 23rd Battalion part of the 2nd Infantry Brigade (with 5th, 6th and 32nd Bns), in the 3rd Military District
    • I assume the 2nd Brigade was part of the 4th Division at this time (1920-1943) - according the that Bde's wiki page at least.
As you can see it is a little scarce, but I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

History of the Rhodesian Light Infantry (1972–1977)

Hi, I've raised a concern about whether this article is actually GA class at Talk:History of the Rhodesian Light Infantry (1972–1977). While the article is an impressive piece of work, it seems to spend way too much time talking about high level political developments and the like given that its meant to be a history of a single unit involved in the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick. No worries, thanks for letting me know. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive

Hi, mate, I'm not sure if you saw this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. As you already do quite a few GA reviews, I thought you might want to sign up and get some recognition. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, in the words of someone else taking about something else "I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"! Nonetheless I've recklessly signed up as well. Last time I did that I got sent to Clown College for 18 months and the time after that I ended up a stranger in a foreign land. Cheers (you've always been a bad influence on me). Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Clown College, in many ways life in green was easier there...Anyway, its category is up for renaming. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... that seems like a clumsy name for a category to me but I'm going to stay out of that one (well over wikidrama at the moment). Anyway I think you may be insane, or drunk, if you want to go back there. Only joking... no regrets at all. On another note I have decided to start a new project and I fully intend on taking a few months doing in the hope that I can somehow do it justice. Pretty sure I'll end up drawing the crabs on this one though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Good luck because the track ahead is mined... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ach... is that all people around here do? Anotherclown (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
There is skiing in the winter. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question

Hi I was looking over research for the 3rd Light Horse Regiment (Australia) and it appears one of its squadrons was made up of Tasmanians. That term redirects to Aboriginal Tasmanians, but I presume they mean residents of the island of Tasmania. Now this is the stupid question were they classed as Australians in the period of the First World War? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day Jim. I think I understand your question correctly. Yes Tasmanians (i.e. anyone from the state of Tasmania, not just Aboriginal Australians) were part of Australia during the First World War (and still are). Anotherclown (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all. Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RLI

Hello, Anotherclown. You have new messages at Talk:History of the Rhodesian Light Infantry (1972–1977).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If you are interested in looking at another RLI article, I have written a new one here which I think you may enjoy reading. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jaunt to the SLQ?

Hi, mate, not sure what you're up to after bde standown, but if you decide to go to the SLQ, would you mind maybe looking up a source for me (it's not at the SA state library, unfortunately)? The source is: At war with the 51st Infantry Battalion and 31/51st Infantry Battalion (AIF) from 1940 to 1946 by William Hughes. The entry for the book at worldcat is here: [1]. Just need a few citations to it to round out the 31st/51st Battalion (Australia) article. Specifically, the casualties suffered after Porton, but before being withdrawn from the front on 28 June 1945. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like fun. On leave from next Saturday so I'll probably be able to go sometime after that. Anotherclown (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going through until the 16th. A couple of duties and a two day cse. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I seem to have avoided duties in Nov and Dec due to being on exercise, then promotion and the fact that I'm posting out (not even a garrision duty, which is normally a captain's job here). Got lucky like that last year too. Anotherclown (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gday. Finally got to the SLQ. Not much in the book I'm afraid and most of the chapter in question deals with Porton Plantation (it then seems to jump to the Bn being relieved). Unfortunately I only had a dollar for parking so I got 40 mins to look at it before running back to the car just in time to prevent the BCC parking Nazis from stinging me for a $75 fine so I had to be fairly quick (took forever just finding the bloody thing tucked away in the John Oxley). Anyway heres what I got (although I don't think its quite what you're after):

Hughes (1993) At War with the 51st Infantry Bn, pp. 253-254:
During the Porton battle D Coy 31/51st Bn made an effort to force a passage from the Ratsua perimetre with a platoon of the Papuan Infantry Battalion. LT Bill Gregory took a patrol to within 500 yards of the Porton perimeter. A list of casualties is included which lists 16 names although it doesn't elaborate as to how many were killed or wounded.
Hughes (1993) At War with the 51st Infantry Bn, p. 255:
"The 31/51st Battalion was relieved by 8th Battalion of the 23rd Brigade on the 28th of June and returned to Torokina. The campaign on the Ratsua-Ruri Bay Line as a short, but bloody one. The 31/51st Battalion suffered a total of 100 casualties, including 14 killed, 7 missing, 79 wounded. Known enemy casualties amounted to 179 killed, 52 probably killed, and 6 known wounded."
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Anotherclown (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for that, it might help. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reinstating information general readers may find useful

I am simply reinstating information general readers may find useful. --Rskp (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

While some of your edits have added to the article, too many have not. Please think very carefully before you edit the Battle of Romani again. --Rskp (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Pls provide actual details of such edits. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi I dont know if you have bothered to follow this series of articles, but any attempt to improve them just gets reverted to what Rskp wants to see. See Talk:Battle of Jerusalem (1917) and its edit history for what I mean. I suggest you move on if you have not already, I intend to. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Hello, Anotherclown. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Walter Görlitz. Thank you for the notification, although to me this just seems like retaliation for the issue raised by myself at ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive174#User:RoslynSKP reported by Anotherclown (talk) (Result: article fully protected). Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

An ASLAV is not a car

Agreed! And neither are Sentinel tanks, or Bushmasters. Odd editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, been a day for it it seems. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

40th Infantry Division (United States)

Hi, excuse the interruption. You seem to know something about this topic. Can I ask is James D. Delk WP notable as a military author? I only ask because some of the AfD article I've just linked to might be the base of an article for him. If not, then not. I'm pretty easy about it, just casually wondering. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. From looking at it very briefly I think there could be a reasonable claim to assume that James D. Delk is notable as a former major general in the US Army National Guard and the former Adjutant General of the California Army National Guard (under WP:SOLDIER). According to the article he was also the Military Field Commander for the 1992 Los Angeles riots which might also confer some notability given the signficance of this event. I'm no expert on the notability rules for authors, however I think he might be notable for his military career at least. That he is/was an author would add to this notability as far as I can tell. Regardless, ultimately these questions are often determined by the amount of coverage in reliable sources a subject has, with the WP:GNG stating: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Is there much coverage out there to meet this criteria? If so he is notable. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Binh Ba

G'day mate, can you please check this one too? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, as near as I can tell Kiwi involvement in this one was fairly minimal and may have included the odd individual here and there. From my sources one of the 2nd LTs from 3 Cav was a Kiwi at least - according to Hopkins (1978) Australian Armour, p. 272. Second Lieutenant J. Ballance (RNZAC) commanded the rear group, although how much involvement he had in the battle itself is not clear from my sources. Artillery support was provided by the 5 RAR direct spt bty, being 105 Bty. There may have been others but I can find anything. NZ official history barely talks about it and only mentions Australian involvement (page 416). Ballance was Mentioned in Despatches for his tour, although its not clear to me if this was for Binh Ba or some other action. Not sure if this is sufficient to include it as an NZ battle. What do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, based on that it seems fair enough to leave that one out. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, seems fair enough. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Member

Hi Anotherclown, I really am not sure if this is the right way to talk to you as I am still relatively new on wikipedia. I wanted to say thankyou for your recent edits to Battle of Doan and the 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive. They really helped to make it look a lot neater as I do have trouble working out how to type all the commands, etc. You are also welcome to add to those battles. I have been trying to find other battles and such to add to Australian categories but unfortunately, the ADF rarely releases anything good and so it does take a few years before they release new information on old conflicts. Also, you recently wrote on my talk page about me removing NZ categories from Vietnam. I did this as I didn't feel the NZ forces had a reasonable amount of presence in some of the battles I read. Anyway thanks again, 18 December 2011 Collingwood26 —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Gday. Re the Afghan articles: its good to see the topic starting to get some coverage, although you are right there is often little infomation available in the public domain which makes it difficult. Hopefully over time we can add some citations. Re the NZ battles in Vietnam, no dramas at all. I guess in some cases it is a judgement call as to how much involvement constitutes sufficient participation to include the category. I agreee that Binh Ba is not sufficient but the others perhaps there is. The usual process in these cases is to be bold and make the edit (which you did), and if someone disagrees with you and reverts discuss the reasoning behind the edit that you want to make on the talk page and if/when there is consensus go ahead and make the edit (the policy is here: WP:BRD). I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, just wanted to let you know I created the article List of wars involving Australia, so if you know of any wars involving Australia that I might of missed it would be a great help if you added it in there thanks mate. 18 December 2011 Collingwood26 —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Will do. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response its been good to talk to you and thanks again for your help.19 December 2011,Collingwood26 —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Hey man, I recently created a new article, Battle of Khaz Oruzgan. It would be great if you could add anything to it or fix something I did wrong. I will be adding more soon but I've just been far too busy :D.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gday again. I've had a look and made a few little changes here and there. Mainly adding wikilinks (to explain military jargon to readers) and merged a couple of stubby sentences to form rudimentary paragraphs. A couple of suggestions: (1) if you have them more references should be added (aim for an inline citation for each paragraph); (2) can page numbers be included for the Maylor book?; (3) try to work on the prose to adopt a more formal tone (less quotations, more summarisation of references, less jargon); and (4) consider if the section on Donaldson could be trimmed a little (remember he already has a article on wikipedia which includes at lot of bibliographic details you have included here). Perhaps aim for more of a summary of his actions in Khaz Oruzgan rather than his career? I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, been away for a bit. I don't have many refs for the article, the onlyreason its that big is because a lot of it came from Rob Maylors book. The page numbers I'm not sure about as I just used a free sample from 'google-ebooks?' i think. However, I got most of the important info out except the last page was not free so technically its incomplete. I know what you mean about the formality of the writing style but like i said its mainly from Maylors book and its basically an account of events from his perspective. I probs should cut down from the Donaldson section as its too large and I'll link the main article or something. Thanks.--124.189.194.68 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why I used the word "imperial..."

To be honest, I mostly put it in to make the article sound.... uh.... cooler.

That is all the justification I have, but if you wish to undo all the changes, you better get busy; I already left that mark on many pages. Fusion7 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Personally I think if you are going to make changes like this to a lot of articles you should check for community consensus first. Anotherclown (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Donaldson photo

Hi, When you have some spare time, would you be able to use the process which led Defence to release the photo of Ben Roberts-Smith to also request that the equivalent photo of Mark Donaldson also be released into the public domain? Sooner or later someone is going to come along and nominate the current photo in the Donaldson article for deletion... Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nick. That takes me back to one of the more painful experiences I've had here (and there has been a couple)... You're probably right though, doubtless someone will take issue with it in the future. I'll approach Defence about the Donaldson image as you suggest, although it will have to wait until the New Year as everyone is on stand down now. Its a little humourous as it seems only wiki cares about this, indeed my contact for the Roberts-Smith image initially couldn't understand the problem as the images have been released for media to use without the requirement for express written permission. I'll let you know how I go. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. In the 'good old days' when I started with Wikipedia no-one cared if you uploaded photos from the media section of websites, and there was even a special default copyright tag for this to help you do it... Lots of federal government agencies are moving towards adopting Wikipedia-friendly licencing conditions for everything they publish, and hopefully Defence will do so as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Amen to that (and this from a stone-cold athiest)... Oh, that's right, the reason I stopped by was to say well done for Oliver David Jackson, and linking him in Alister Murdoch -- now I finally know what "the "O.D." stood for (okay I could've looked up a nominal roll -- I was lazy)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Gday Ian. Too easy, I've been meaning to write something on him for a bit. Interestingly through most of his life he seems to have been called "O.D." or "David" so there are actually few sources which use his full name! Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks very much. Merry Christmas. Anotherclown (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Awarded to Anotherclown, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their work providing sources for articles relating to Australian military units during 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anotherclown/Archive_6&oldid=1142855887"