User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RAE Wiki

G'day Rupert,

I'm just looking to develop communications with the admin of the RAE page.

I'm currently a serving officer at the School of Military Engineering and have been tasked to update the Corps' Wiki.

You seem to have done the majority of the edits in the past, so I was just wondering if you would be interested in collaborating with us to update some information?

Kind Regards,

SME — Preceding unsigned comment added by School of Military Engineering (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @School of Military Engineering: First off...Welcome to Wikipedia! Second, while it is admirable you are willing to work to update the page, you need to understand that you have a direct conflict of interest in working on this article. While you can make edits to it, it is difficult for a person with such a conflict of interest to do so. I encourage you to read this guideline regarding conflict of interest. Understand that whatever you wish to add/modify on the article needs to be done so from a neutral point of view and should be based on reliable sources, not what you personally know. If you need help, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @School of Military Engineering: G'day, I'd be happy to help, although my time will be a bit limited until after July. I think the best way for you to contribute would be for you to post your comments, suggestions or sources on the talk page of the article (found here), and then we can discuss them. I, or someone else, can then try to update the article if the suggestions/sources meet the site's guidelines. This is probably best, noting what Hammersoft is saying above about your conflict of interest. Secondly, I think you need to change your username. Wikipedia accounts are not allowed to represent organisations, only individuals, as a group name implies shared use (which isn't allowed). As such, I'd suggest that you read the guidance here: Wikipedia:Changing username and then make a request here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Your new username should comply with the guidance here: Wikipedia:Username policy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 40 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, congratulations for your WikiChevrons. Thank you for your help in 40 reviews between those months and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Milhist contest

The Writer's Barnstar
For being runner-up in the June 2019 Milhist article writing contest, on behalf of the coordinators I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Motor brigades

G'day AR, I was just reviewing 23rd (Northumbrian) Division and noticed that there was an explanation of British Army doctrine at the beginning of WWII regarding "motor" formations that might be useful background for your articles on these various brigades that were "motor". If you look at Note b it provides the aforementioned doctrine, which I assume we adopted as well? Not sure where you would go to confirm that it also applied to Australia, but thought the similarities in names might indicate we were using the same ideas? Food for thought. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for this, from what I can tell we conceptualised mounted forces a bit differently from the British for quite some time -- we saw cavalry more as an offensive capability even into the late 1930s -- but I haven't found something that quite explains the role of the motor brigade/division in Australian doctrine. I'd hoped this ref might help, but it doesn't fully answer the question: [1]. Indeed, it seems some of the impetus for mechanisation was not so much the declining role of the horse in modern warfare, but the lack of availability of good horses...seems a bit muddled to me. Anyway, I will look at Bou, and see what he has to say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

16th Air Land Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery

G’day AustralianRupert, hope you have been well. Can you confirm that 16th Air Land Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery is now the 16th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery? Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: G'day, I don't think so -- I certainly haven't heard anything about a rename -- but I will see what I can find out from sources and let you know. If there has been a rename, it would probably be in the Army Newspaper soonish: [2] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newm30: Ok, yes I can confirm that the regiment has been redesignated. It was announced in the 11 July 2019 edition of Army News. I will update the article and move it across. I have to think this causes some lineage issues, though, as I don't believe it will be the same lineage as the 16th Field Regiment, which existed previously. Can't confirm that yet, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Newm30 (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

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 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) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Coord election

G'day AR, I'm wondering if you would consider returning to the coord team at this year's election? Many hands make light work and all that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day, PM, not sure if that's a good idea, I'm sorry. I will have to think about it and get back to you closer to September. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but it is not the same without you on board. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would like to second this. AR, you are consistently active and it is necessary that we have a majority of coords who have a demonstrated record of being able handle long tasks like closing the contest at the end of each month and checking each contest entry. The unfortunate occurrences of last year should not outweigh your several previous terms as coord. Not only that, but you have consistently taken on the toughest GA reviews in the backlog, and I still remember your review of the NZ Div Cav article that encouraged me to take it to a higher assessment status three years ago. Kges1901 (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Belated thirds to this sentiment. Something I weighed in my decision as to whether to stand as a coordinator was whether I wanted to, knowing that you wouldn't be there for assistance and support. I note that you have volunteered support for other candidates and wonder if I could cheekily ask that if I were to be appointed that you could keep an occasional eye on how I am doing and let me know if you spot anything which I should or could be doing and aren't; which I am that I shouldn't; or am doing, but poorly, inadequately or inappropriately. Inappropriately assuming an outcome which has yet to materialise: if it were to, then I would feel happier knowing that you were occasionally glancing over my shoulder. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: G'day, Gog, I'd be most happy to help you out if you become a co-ord - the same goes for anyone standing. I'm sure you will do a great job, but if I can help in any way, please just ask. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks AR. I will. I am more concerned about the unknown unknowns; so if you happen to spot me doing anything in any way different from how you would, including deciding to do it in the first place, please bring it to my attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries, will do -- but please don't think that my way is always right. ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but...

Would you mind a post Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project Excalibur/archive1 in the excalibur FAC ( I can't get the link to work)? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: G'day, Maury, I have added some comments on the review page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Leafypros

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

1st Armoured Brigade ACR

Hi, I'm afraid that I'm going to be out of town on holiday for the next week, and won't be able to monitor this ACR - sorry for any inconvenience this causes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Nick, enjoy your holiday! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy 21st July

Happy 21st July cannot wait for the firework have a nice day. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thank you, I hope that you enjoy the day, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal with swords 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for Battle of Elands River (1900), Landing at Jacquinot Bay, and 1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


AASF

Thanks for the ce; this is what happens when you let real life intrude on article writing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Keith, happy to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Suboroboli12

Suboroboli12 is a vandalism-only account, I had to revert all of his/her contributions, wishing to have MassRollback installed. Indeff? — kashmīrī TALK 06:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day, as far as I can tell all of their edits have already been reverted, so mass rollback doesn't seem necessary. I've blocked for 36 hours. If they return to vandalism, let me know and I will indef. However, I am reticent to indef based on a single warning. If another admin chooses to indef, then I'm fine with that, but I feel it best to at least give them a chance to come back and contribute meaningfully. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If there are edits that haven't been reverted, please let me know and I will revert them for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I reverted them all as not a single one was constructive (or non-vandalism). Had his Contributions page open, kept refreshing and rollbacking. Will keep an eye tomorrow night, although in my reading the person is definitely NOTHERE. Best, — kashmīrī TALK 06:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding deleted edits

Hi, Rupert. I'm back editing Wikipedia in a limited fashion. (Still having a few problems with the hand that I'd injured a few months ago.) I've been working on cleaning up some articles for one of the U.S. state wikiprojects because that particular wikiproject had been labeled as semi-active and has a number of articles about key historical figures which needed/need serious attention. I happened to check my online stats the other day just to see how many edits I've done (out of sheer curiosity), and was surprised to find that I now have four deleted edits. (In my first three years, I'd had no edits deleted whatsoever.) I've never received notice on my Watchlist that one of my edits had been deleted (let alone four), and no Wikipedia editor has ever reached out to me beforehand to suggest that I change something. So, I was curious to see what those edits might have been (to see if I could learn anything about what I might have done wrong, or if I hadn't, determine whether or not those deleted edits might have been incorrectly deleted). But when I clicked on the number four under the deleted edits column, I received a "Permission error" message which stated that permission to view those deleted edits was available only to Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, and Checkusers. I remembered today that you're an Administrator; so I wanted to reach out to see if you could check the edits that were deleted and tell me why and which Wikipedia editor(s) was(were) responsible for the deletions? Any help that you can provide would be most appreciated as always. Hope all is well with you. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: G'day, great to hear that you are back to editing; sorry the hand is still giving you trouble. Regarding your deleted edits -- don't worry too much about this. It happens to everyone. In your case, the four edits that were deleted were talk page edits where you assessed an article. In three cases, the article itself was subsequently deleted (in two cases via AfD, and one as a copyright vio) and in the fourth case two duplicate page histories were merged, resulting in one page being deleted. As a result, the talkpages were deleted per CSD G8. Your tagging of the article talk pages/assessment was fine, the edits were just simply collateral damage, I'm afraid. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: That's great news, Rupert! Many thanks for checking and for providing such a great explanation (and for the kind welcome back). I learned something new today, thanks to you, and am okay with the "collateral damage". (I just wanted to make sure I hadn't done anything utterly heinous.)  :-) Have a great weekend! 47thPennVols (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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 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) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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 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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

8th Field Survey Squadron

G’day AustralianRupert, I was wondering if you could review or cast your eye over 8th Field Survey Squadron if you haven’t already. Very in depth article on subject matter. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day, @Newm30: clearly a lot of work has been put into the article. I am a little concerned that it may be perceived as too detailed, though, and potentially that there is original research being used (e.g. "personal notes" as references) and uncited, or seemingly partially cited information. I don't mean to discourage, though, as it could be developed into quite a tidy article, but it would probably need quite a bit a reduction and further sourcing to achieve this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly but didn’t want to just be my opinion only. Maybe a friendly introduction and mentoring of the editor could be warranted. We don’t want to lose enthusiastic editors as we seem to do well at. Just wanted to flag with you as a valued and esteemed Australian editor who may be able to assist editor more than I could ever do. Regards Newm30 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Surinder Amarnath

Hello there , I can see you have written some content about Surinder Amarnath - Former Test Cricketer based on the figures and numbers which themselves are available on ESPNCRICINFO.

Wikipedia is suppose to provide information about a Cricketer or a personality. It seems you are unaware of the cricketing scenario in india in the 1970”s and therefore are going on editing Surinder Amarnath”s content without actually knowing what happened in the country at that time. I have newspaper cuttings to prove what I have written but I think according to you only Australians can be great .. is it ? You have conveniently locked the page on the pretext of preventing vandalism whereas writing what you want and then locking the page is vandalism . Habibcricket (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello ?? Reply please Habibcricket (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to engage in a civil conversation with me, I will be happy to communicate with you. However, your tone currently is not civil -- I have expressed no such comment about "only Australians can be great". These are your words and are obviously not true if you follow cricket these days. Besides that, I have not "conveniently" locked the page. Nor have I written what I want and then locked it. I have contributed no content to the article. I have protected it from disruptive editing due to editors consistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced information against the current consensus on the article. If you wish to change the content of the article, gain consensus for your change on the article's talk page, providing the details of the sources you wish to use. Continuing to add the same material in this manner is disruptive and against site policy. If you wish to request unprotection before the time has expired, you may do so in the usual fashion (post a comment at WP:RFUP), but accusing the protecting admin of vandalism is not the way to make such a request. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you but I have been following the Amarnath family especially the Amarnath brothers “ Surinder & Mohinder” . Till today people who saw them play speak about Surinder”s immense talent .. there are paper cuttings of the 1970”s and 80s where many journalists have written about him being one of the best and one of the most unluckiest as well due to the way he was treated by the selectors. I can share the same with you or with anyone but just show me where do send you the screenshots of the same. Mr Shashi Tharoor , a keen lover of the game also wrote about Surinder as one of the most talented of his time . The way Surinder Amarnath played was admired by so many and most of them and there was a general sentiment that he being one of the best in the side with his aggressive style of batting , should have played more tests for india. Many commentators while commenting in a test match talk about his immense talent. Even , ex chairman of selectors and former teammate of Surinder , Kris Srikanth echoed the same sentiments when he was asked to describe Surinder Amarnath . Writer Pratap Ramchand also wrote “ Surinder was a treat to watch when would get going and could destroy the best of attacks when in full flow “ . He proved it by scoring a strokeful 63 against john levers England when the rest of them were failing.

Hence considering all of this request you to kindly allow me to edit the content as there is nothing false or illegal about speaking highly of Surinder . Thanks . Habibcricket (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day, you should post the details of your sources (e.g, author, date, title, newspaper name, page numbers, url (if you have website links) etc) on the talk page of the article, with an outline of what you want to add to the article. This will allow editors interested in the article to engage with you about what you are seeking to add. At this stage I do not wish to get involved with the content of the article, so there is no need for you to send me screen shots. If you offer this on the talk page of the article, though, interested editors will let you know if they wish to receive these for you, though. You will need to be careful to keep the tone of your additions to the article neutral, though, rather than being too laudatory or otherwise. Opinions of journalists should also be attributed with limited quotes and citations in text, rather than being reported in Wikipedia's voice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Tried everything but no one is seeing the talk page .. I guess you should unlock the page and allow me to write a description which was mainly public view of Surinder Amarnath. It has been printed in newspapers and echoed by former greats of the game as well . Habibcricket (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day, the article protection will expire shortly (1 Sep). In the meantime, I have added a comment on the article's talk page in response to your comment - to reiterate what I said above, please list the details of the sources you will cite and the words you wish to use, so that people can comment and you can establish consensus for your proposed changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop this ... The views I have written have been published 4 decades back and are not my creation. I’m case you want to control content please Delete the Amarnath family from Wikipedia ... We don’t need it Habibcricket (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to control the article, however, I do have a desire to ensure that site policies about sourcing and neutral tone are maintained. If you wish to continue to contribute to it you need to abide by Wikipedia's policies in this regard. You can do so by providing citations to reliable sources; I have linked the templates that you can use to do this on the talk page earlier in our discussion. You will also need to stop reverting and start trying to build consensus for your changes. If you do not wish to do this, please stop editing the article. If you wish for the article to be deleted, you are entitled to nominate it for deletion at articles for deletion. However, you will need to have solid policy based reasons for requesting deletion. Finally, your use of the term "we" when referring to the family indicates you may have a conflict of interest. If this is the case, I strongly advise you to read the relevant guidelines and abide by Wikipedia's policies in this regard. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for Help

I have created a draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alcides_S._%22Bull%22_Benini, it is pretty much of a stub, but I think it is a good article and qualifies for moving to mainspace. However if I move it I risk speedy deletion. I would like to know if it meets criteria for movement to mainspace and how do I insert a submit for review template. I already used the template "{{user draft}} but the template doesn't show. What did I do wrong. Thanks in advance for your help. PS I made a statement on the article talk page as to why I believe he is notable.Oldperson (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. After writing the above I found a template. (I have trouble working my way around the help pages). I inserted the template, but not sure if it is working as when I submitted the article for review I receive some puzzling templates Not sure what is going on. I respect, sans caveat, your judgement especially on military related articles Thanks in advance.Oldperson (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: G'day, no worries, I will take a look at the draft and send you an email. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your helpful edits to Alcide "Bull" Benini. I hope someday to become an experienced editor. As regards sources other than thsn those already cited, I know ofnone, but am going to try some contacts to see if they know of any. Doubtful as the organization was sub rosa and quiet until the WOT. There is this book, but it is privately published and probably doesn't meet the standards for RS http://www.sgtmacsbar.com/Benini.pdf. There are at least five books about CCT but of there is a mention of Bull Benini it is only in passing. Other than his role in founding Combat Control and formulating early standards and procedures, and other than surviving the Bataan Death March and his captivity, you might say that his life was not exceptional, unlike his professional heir John A. Chapman who does have a book written about him https://www.amazon.com/Alone-Dawn-Recipient-Deadliest-Operations/dp/1538729652/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/139-5345093-5903024?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1538729652&pd_rd_r=65ba2634-bfa1-4273-b464-a5500ae50ab5&pd_rd_w=6RbTg&pd_rd_wg=2Vw8v&pf_rd_p=1c11b7ff-9ffb-4ba6-8036-be1b0afa79bb&pf_rd_r=NY82TJBYE5B23529NS58&psc=1&refRID=NY82TJBYE5B23529NS58. Is there anyway we can move this to mainspace and take our chances?. I will look for RS inthe meantime.Oldperson (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: G'day, while I'd like to be positive about the article's chances, I think with its current level of sourcing, it would not survive long in mainspace before being nominated for deletion. As such, I would advise against publishing it at this time. Have you tried looking at newspapers.com: [3]? That might have an article on him. Beyond that, though, potentially there might be some other publication that might allow you to publish the article without having concerns about notability guidelines. For instance, this magazine might be a possibility: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

{ping|AustralianRupert#top}} Thanks, Do you think that these links will do? https://www.militarynews.com/norfolk-navy-flagship/bataan-honors-wwii-veteran-alcide-bull-benini/image_6dbbf2d8-4cb7-50b3-b289-587fe20638ec.html. Also these two USAF interviews. I understand that youtube is fround upon, but the interviews are with the USAF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6J8fjH9CCc part 2 of same interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOukshlBdrc, then there is this:https://www.tribdem.com/news/in-the-spotlight-he-was-a-hero-navy-recognizes-bataan/article_616d92e4-400a-11e6-a4f4-03af79a1c8be.html newspapers.com requires a subscription. They offer a 7 day free trial, after I give them my credit card, and I have had bad luck with this gambit, thre is this: https://books.google.com/books?id=DvXoICsQPKoC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=alcide+s+%22bull%22+benini&source=bl&ots=dCcBJezPSX&sig=ACfU3U3swB5GrBHuLyxs5xhPZ8uwvoCDtg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNntq3x6PkAhVHsp4KHVmaBHEQ6AEwCHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=alcide%20s%20%22bull%22%20benini&f=falsehttps://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2015/01/07/another-of-the-unbroken/. As an aside. During the 1965 India Pakistan war Combat Controllers were assisting both sides. At night the teams would communicate with each other over HF, that is until the Indians found out. On second thought I will add these references to the article. I hope that the Youtube link meets WP standards.Oldperson (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: G'day, I have added a suggestion to draft talk page. Your point above about the US combat controllers assisting both sides in 1965 is quite interesting. Must have been some concerns about hurting their own people, surely, as well as uncertainty about what the mission actually was. Anyway, I believe a few British advisors were in the same situation in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
How does it look now?Oldperson (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Oldperson: If you don't mind? I worked here and there on the draft to restore the little errors and typos. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: I don't mind at all in fact I am extremely grateful for your help. I feel embarassed though for letting such simple and stupid errors get by.

I think the article is now ready for mainspace. I can't see what else can be done to improveOldperson (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson and CPA-5: G'day, I've added another suggestion on the article's talk page, sorry. I am a little concerned that the image licence might also have an issue. Currently, the description pages says "permission pending"; who have you contacted to provide permission? They will probably have to provide this through OTRS via the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
{ping|AustralianRupert}}Good day to you too sir. I am aware of the QTRS requirment for a permission slip. I've used the process before. I tried to send a request (permission slip) to Combat Control School Heritage Foundation (ccshf.org) but there is a glitch on their website,so I have asked a retired Combat Controller who owns his own CCT website (sgtmacsbar.com) to assist me, and sent him the QTRS permissions slip. I hope it goes through. I don't think that it is really necessary though as ccshf is affiliated with the USAF and a sponsor of the Bull Benini Heritage Museum. If the picture is nominated for deletion I will argue my case, and resubmit when I get permission.Oldperson (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

cum laude

In case you just hovered, saw gerund, and oh I get it ...

@Brogo13: Sorry, I still don't agree with your change, and your post here doesn't seem to offer a clear idea of your reasoning behind it. Given that I reverted your change, I would have preferred you discuss it first before you reverted to reinsert your change as per the guidance at WP:BRD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought this settled the grammatical issue, but I'm dropping it (re this article anyway; please feel free to swat that pesky apostrophe again). Meanwhile, sincerest apologies for myahem undoing an[yone's] undo without asking.--Brogo13 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the matter, I'm more than happy to listen, but you will need to explain your point of view clearly rather than providing a link without clarification or explanation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

2/1st Anti-Tank Regiment (Australia)

Hello; feel free to tell me to wind my neck in with this. The quote is below;

The regiment remained in New Guinea until October 1943, returning by sea to Cairns, Queensland. Throughout 1943–1944, the regiment remained in Australia as there was no real role for them in offensives being fought by the Australians

Would the last line sound better if it was ...there was no real role for them in any offensive action being fought by...

Just a thought. Loved the article, though. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for taking a look. I have reworked it a little now to clarify which offensives. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Affect vs effect

I remembered you couldn't figure out when you'd to use it. I've got an answer for you. Think about the word RAVEN (Remember Affect is a Verb, Effect is a Noun). I found this trick on the internet and I thought "Maybe I have to say this to AR because he struggles to use them". However, affect can be a verb too so do effect be a noun. These exceptions are usually used to "effect" as a verb before the words "change" or "solutions" (with other words "to bring about") and "affect" as a noun only if feelings, emotions, or specific emotional responses are in the sentence. I hope you understand the trick I just found on the internet. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, CPA. I will try to remember that one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

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 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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Moroccan Division at 2nd Villers-Bretonneux

Hi Rupert - this is a bit of a touchy one. We have communicated previously about the 52nd Battalion AIF. In the WP article on 2nd Villers-Bretonneux someone (can't tell who) has included statements from the French historian Romain Fathi that the Moroccan Divison "rescued" the 51st and 52nd Australian battalions. This is not correct and even Fathi now agrees and uses the correct word "relieved". The issue came about because Fathi when he researched the French side failed to return to the Australian sources to validate what the French officers had recorded i.e he only properly researched the French side of the story - interestingly a criticism he makes of Australian historians. Importantly, Fathi did not look at the Australian historian Charles Bean's War Diaries. I have confirmed this with him and actually provided the sources. In his Diary Bean comments that the French and Australians undertook "relief" of the Front Line in completely different ways (page 38) at <ref>https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1377976<ref>. Commenting that "The French don't relieve as we do. They simply formulate a barrage line & form up behind it & go forward. Our line was in front of this barrage but we had to clear it by a stated hour". The French interpreted the Australian clearing of the battlefield as leaving the battlefield empty. This was not the case. It is worth notingg that on the morning of 26 April 1918 the two armies were co-operating for the first time ever on the Western Front. The Australians had to abandon the battlefield or be shelled. Are Bean's Diaries (reference and page number above) a suitable WP source? We have previously discussed use of primary sources. Otherwise I have an article coming out in December which corrects Fathi's position.

Best

Harpoooner1830Harpooner1830 (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harpooner1830: G'day, good to hear from you. I hope you are well. Regarding your query, the war diaries can be used as references, but for Wikipedia purposes there are some limitations. WP:PRIMARY provides the guidance here -- basically, cite them for bare, simple facts, but use secondary sources for interpretation of those sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rupert - I think I'll wait and use the Original source supported by my interpretation after my article is published in December. Thanks for you advice.110.23.42.210 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, that is probably the best course of action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

2/10th Battalion

G'day AR, I've finally had a look at this article, made a few minor c/e-type changes, and reckon it is good to go for ACR. What do you reckon? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, thanks for going through the article -- I have created the nomination page, now. It can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/10th Battalion (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

You are a Ray of Sunshine!
It says here "The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person who, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world and that you can relax. May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day." So here you go. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I was about to leave a message for you when I thought of this award. It seemed so wholly appropriate that I just had to give it to you. It occurred to me that you may be a bit past appreciating this sort of nonsense, but I decided that I don't care: I feel better for having expressed the sentiment. Long may you continue to shine beneficently. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

USS Blue Ridge / INTERFET

On the INTERFET WIKI there is a USS Blue Ridge missing from the vessel list, it was there as I visited it. Manybthanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.105.194 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day, do you have a reliable source for its participation, and the dates it was deployed? If you can provide me with the details (e.g. author, title of the work, page numbers etc), I can probably add it for you. I note, though, that it isn't included in the list on p. 14 of this source: [5]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For scoring 1,222 points in the WikiProject Military history September 2019 edit-a-thon Backlog Banzai, I hereby award you The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 37 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Seabee

G'day to you. When you have a moment would you look Con Thien. When I first read the article it was obvious to me that the POV was not neutral as the Special Forces and Seabees were omitted. The article talked about the Marine Corps as if they had been there by themselves. Since the Special Forces and Seabees were there I added them. An editor removed all of it except they left a reference to the Special Forces. The cited reason was the source. I went back and added references that show the Seabees were there and the same editor has removed all of it again citing "self promotion". So could you take your neutral POV and review the deletion. Thank youMcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

G'day, in disputes such as this you need to be careful not to be seen to WP:CANVAS only editors who you believe will specifically support your point of view. In this regard, the best way to avoid being accused of this, is to post your concerns on the article's talk page, and then post a neutrally worded request at WT:MILHIST or a similar widely viewed noticeboard, inviting all editors to post an opinion to assist with determining consensus. Before doing this, though, have you discussed the matter directly with Mztourist? If not, I'd suggest doing this as quite often such issues can be resolved relatively simply by discussion one-on-one, followed by compromise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, this Wikipedia world is completely Greek to me. I brought the edit to you as I know that you are involved in the Military History Project and are Commonwealth so I would/should expect a neutral POV concerning the U.S. military. In fact that is exactly what I requested of you. The only other Wikipedia editor with whom I have communicated with I think has passed away. This "canvassing" aspect you enlightened me of I expect people do. I regret to say it reflects the "social media" character I think is prevalent amongst Wikipedia editors. There seems to be a great deal of subjectivity and bias in this editing process in my opinion. The editor at question has the opinion that the content posted is self promotion (Seabees? Me? Navy?) when it came out of the Army's Historical Center. How that correlation is objectively argued escapes me. The editor states my edit was self promotion (because my talk page says I am ex-Navy or maybe my ID) and then completely deleted the Seabees but allowed the Special Forces to remain. That reflects a bias. They do not state that there is a POV problem with the content posted. They have a subjective problem with the facts stated because they believe I have a bias when they very obviously have one. Had I stated all of this to begin with anyone could argue that I wanted a biased opinion or support from you. As I did not, it was offensive to read the "warning" you gave me to "be careful" when I was requesting and unbiased opinion. Your suggestion of editing by committee is nonsense, either Wikipedia has a standard to met or it does not. No where in my email did I request your support. I thought it was a request for a professional Military History Project review. Thank you for the reply. Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

G'day, it wasn't my intent to offend, but rather to help you navigate the site's dispute resolution and consensus building processes so that you can resolve the situation without experiencing more frustration. That said, evidently my advice did cause more frustration, so in that regard, I'm sorry that you took it that way. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

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 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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

10th Battalion

G'day AR, just a note about the 10th Battalion. I am thinking that for FAC, it probably needs some more granular detail regarding its movements throughout, in terms of frontline, support and reserve positions, rear area duties etc during WWI. What do you think about that? I'd be happy to add the relevant info from Lock as I have a copy. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day, yes, I think you are right -- probably needs a bit more for FAC. To be honest, I've never really been keen for FAC as a process, but I don't want to stifle improvement so if you are keen I will try to help out if I can. I will try to order Lock, Limb and Kearney from the library. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A rough estimate

Hi. Please could you give a rough estimate of how close, or rather how far, Indian Military Academy is from a GA tag? Do i need to do any more heavy editing, like re-write an entire para or section or anything else which really needs to be sorted out. (I'm very new at all this. My FL was with an experienced editor so they handled the hard part. This is sort of the first real effort at a GA for me. I am just asking so accordingly I can prep for the GA nom and futher.) Thanks and Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: G'day, I will add some pre-GA review suggestions on the talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I have started incorporating them. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Linking to a page in French

Hello AR I want to link to two pages in fr.wikipedia.org, in French, but there are also pages with the same names in English. They are "Vignacourt", where all the glass plates with the photos of diggers on leave were taken during the war and found recently in a box in a barn, and the underground caves at "Naours" where they left their names on the walls. The French versions mention what I want, but the English version are just very sparse descriptions of the towns in France. I tried the double square brackets around fr:Vignacourt, but it made the text disappear.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naours https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignacourt

Thank you Greg GJW (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gjw9999: G'day, Greg, try the following code: [[fr:Vignacourt|Vignacourt]] and [[fr:Naours|Naours]]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the same thing happened. The text disappeared, as in "at the farm at." instead of "at the farm at Vignacourt." But you put me on the right track, and I found it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interlanguage_links#Inline_links, the 'inline' link being the key. And it is fr:Naours, ie. a colon before and after the "fr". Or to make it neater Naours Thank you, Cheers, GregGJW (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Borneo campaign (1945)

Sorry for abandoning that section - I was half way through it when I realised that I needed to put dinner on! Thanks for tidying this up, and I've just finished the section off. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Nick, hope your dinner was better than mine -- baked beans on toast (the family are away, so I'm a bachelor for the weekend). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Balikpapan (1945)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Balikpapan (1945) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Balikpapan (1945)

The article Battle of Balikpapan (1945) 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Balikpapan (1945) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Balikpapan (1945)

The article Battle of Balikpapan (1945) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Balikpapan (1945) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Borneo campaign (1945)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Borneo campaign (1945) 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Borneo campaign (1945)

The article Borneo campaign (1945) 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Borneo campaign (1945) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Borneo campaign (1945)

The article Borneo campaign (1945) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Borneo campaign (1945) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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 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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back AR! I hope you buried some of the bushfires to the ground, I also hope you are all right? :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day, CPA, thanks -- ok here. I had a mainly ops/logistics and liaison role, this time, so no real danger. Very humbling to work with some incredibly dedicated and professional people. Unfortunately, the danger for people in many places across the country will continue for many weeks, if not months this summer. Many of the fires have been brought under control due to the efforts of some very brave people, but unfortunately, many homes have been lost, and several people have lost their lives. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Great to hear - it's indeed really sad to see or hear (from people or from the news) people suffer this kind of natural disaster. I believe this kind of disaster won't be prevented in the near future. The only way to prevent this is by giving every tree water in the dry seasons both in the northern and southern part of the world. Right now our winter has started after one of our hottest summers ever finished its part of the year. My thoughts and prays are with the people who suffer these kinds of disaster. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Hasan Mahmud (politician)

Hi, we had exactly one IP and one user [probably the same) who had disrupted the article in the last days...before that, no edits at all since September, and hardly any since January. I do not feel strongly about it, but imho nothing in our protection policy would shout "protect me" here. Lectonar (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Lectonar. Hope you are well. My concern here was mainly what appeared to be vandalism on a BLP regarding a public figure. You are probably right about the IP and the user potentially being the same editor. Will take your points on board. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of North Borneo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of North Borneo 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of North Borneo

The article Battle of North Borneo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of North Borneo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation

Good Day Sir, just wanted to confirm the change made to the Emu War article was what I wanted to be added.

Regards. 

Ytypy (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
G'day, no worries, thanks for your suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster, seasons greetings to you, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

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 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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Bzuk, all the best to you and your family, too, for the Christmas and New Year season. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello AustralianRupert: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
I do know it's summer in Australia :) Donner60 (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Christmas

Heh, Merry late Christmas? Does that still count? ;) Hopefully, you had a great Christmas as I did? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

G'day, CPA, thanks - yes, I enjoyed Christmas. Good to hear you had a good Christmas, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well I'd better can say happy New Year 'cause 2020 is knocking at the door of Australia and New Zealand. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I hope you have a fantastic 2020 also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually I am now curious how New Year look like in the southern hemisphere? Because it's summer over there and I cannot imagine how it'd look like. Thanks. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yesterday it was 43 degrees here, and very windy (a few dust storms and lots of smoke). It's a bit cooler today, thankfully (35 degrees). Bush fires all around the area at the moment. Total fire ban, so no fireworks tonight so long as people do as they are meant to. Cricket will be on the TV, and we will have seafood and a few drinks. Will probably let the older children stay up to count down to the New Year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AustralianRupert!

Happy New Year!

AustralianRupert,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Cheers, Eddie. All the best for 2020. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Help!

@AustralianRupert: Happy New Year, Rupert! I hope you’re in a good mood, because I’m back with the same (awkward) problem - the AC nomination process. I have two articles, Cadet Nurse Corps and USS Tucker (DD-374) that are likely candidates for ACR. I know it’s not rocket science, but try as I might, even with your cheat sheet, I still can’t get over the finish-line. Let me explain -

Once on the respective talk page, I click edit and add A-class=current to the WPMILHIST template, then click publish. Next, the cheat sheet says, this will take you back to the view/read mode. It bogs-down here for me – because I’m unable to get into the view/read mode for the template. Publish takes me back to the ordinary information on most every talk page? Can you tell what I’m doing wrong?

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pendright: G'day, happy New Year! I have completed the nomination process for you now for both pages. They can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cadet Nurse Corps and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Tucker (DD-374) (when you are ready, please add these review pages to your watchlist). You were on the right track with the first step, but didn't complete the second step of creating the review pages. The way I do it is edit the article's talk page with "|A-Class=current" and then save the talk page. You will see the ordinary information in the talk page banner at that point (this is "view/read mode" i.e. you don't see the html mark up/computer code anymore, just a normal screen). Where you see the WikiProject Military history banner, click "show" to extend the banner. You will then see "Additional information..." in bold writing. To the right of that, click "show" for a second time. That will extend the banner again, revealing a red link with the words "currently undergoing". Click that red link -- it is the new review page for the article you have nominated. Type a brief nomination statement on that page, and then hit save. Transclude that review page on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review, as I did with this edit: [6]. Hit save and you are good to go. Anyway, I have to go away with work this afternoon to help with the bushfires, so I will be offline for a while, I'm sorry. Good luck with the reviews and all the best for 2020. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Pendright (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: G'day, sorry for the ping. Per the above, I wonder if the A-class review instructions need a bit of a tweak for clarity? I'm sorry, but I have to go away for awhile so can't assist any further at this stage, but would one, or a few of you, mind taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review/Instructions, and potentially expanding the instructions a little? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if it'd be useful to upload some screenshots of the process? Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: G'day, yes I think that would be a good solution. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No. 500 Squadron

Do you have any connection with 500 squadron? I have been doing research on the squadron with squadron members, the RAF and my father, who was in the squadron from its formation to the end of the war. These details are important and correct and will be replaced. Thank you for your input from Australia though. Andrew Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.27 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

AR is away at the moment. I left a note at User talk:500Squadron explaining the problem with the material here - in short, you are adding unreferenced material in the middle of referenced material. Please provide references. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day, @Nick-D: back now, but have to head off again on Sunday evening, though. @500Squadron: Andrew, I have no connection with No. 500 Squadron, although a relative of mine served in Europe with the RAAF. Anyway, I have tweaked your addition now so that the reference tags work and to fix up a few other minor issues (italics, quote marks and capitalisation etc). I doubt I will have time to look at the article further, though, I'm sorry, due to other events here. It's "watch and act" around here today and I'm back on the road tomorrow with work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 27 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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 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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article request

Hi there! Any chance you can share the deleted content from Paul Sanders (athlete)? The subject is notable so I want to see if there was any useful content to build on. Thanks! SFB 10:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day, the content was completely uncited and only two short paragraphs, so may not be very useful to you, unfortunately. That said, I can email you a copy, if you would like. Would you like me to do this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
That's OK, I'll leave it. Just thought I'd check in case anything significant was there. Cheers! SFB 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

5th New York Cavalry

Thank you very much for the Peer Review of 5th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry. I will fix things over the next few days. Cheers! TwoScars (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your hard work! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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 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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Gerda. I hope you are well. Thanks! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Single-purpose account

I will kindly ask you to pay closer attention to this editing as it has gone unnoticed for far too long and I do not see it to be per Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia.

This is just some of the recent work: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

+ resorting to sock puppets [20] (there is more to be found)

Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I'm sorry but I don't know enough about the topic area to determine if the edits you list are problematic. Peacemaker67 might know the topic area enough to help, or you might be best raising your concerns at WP:ANI. If you can provide behavioural evidence (e.g. similar editing patterns, similar spelling errors, etc) supporting the last claim, a report at WP:SPI would be another option. If you do post at ANI, please make sure you notify the editor in question. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

maybe you can help

I seem to be at a loss as to where to go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 - and a recent edit and the subsequent conversation. I am wondering whether you have the patience and the capacity to deal with the issue - viz [21] - if I have overstepped the new user greeting with too much, then perhaps there is more misunderstanding to go through before a resolution occurs... your counsel would be appreciated... JarrahTree 11:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: G'day, sorry for the delayed reply -- I had to go interstate for a couple of days at short notice to deal with something for work and just got back this evening. From what I can tell the edit to the article was worded in a promotional manner by the author of the book so reverting it was probably best. While it isn't forbidden for authors to cite their own work, it is important for it to be written in a non promotional way, which it wasn't, and without hyperbole. In this regard it is often best for an author to let someone else add the source, if possible -- for instance I have seen some authors post links to their work on talk pages as potential sources and inviting those without a COI to make the decision whether or not to include the source. Communication with new editors can be difficult, as you do not know how much they understand about editing already and it is possible to cause more confusion by using too much jargon or insult them by essentially teaching them to suck eggs. Either way it can lead to misunderstandings. I think you did your best and were probably on a hiding to nothing. Potentially next time highlighting the guidance at WP:PROMOTION might help, but then again I suspect it probably wouldn't have. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the trouble to explain so well, got blocked anyways by a friend of ours - sorry to have been a nuisance JarrahTree 10:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
All good. You are definitely not a nuisance -- all the best. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

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 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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For scoring 993 points in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 28 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For you many contributions to military history articles and to Wikipedia in general, I award you this barnstar. Donner60 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Donner. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Exeter 1642; Request for Input

There are three specific 'sieges'; this one, August 1643, 1645-1646. Here, the Royalists wandered up to the walls, hoping to be let in by sympathisers, but found that not to be the case. They withdrew.

Tbh, I only did this one because it was on the list of requests for articles, and its pretty dull. What additional detail do you suggest should be included? Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: G'day, I have marked a couple of places that need references. Also, in the body of the article, you will need to mention the strength and casualties that are listed in the infobox and I think you will need to clarify the date that Hopton was forced to retreat into Cornwall (I've marked this with a clarify tag). Expanding the Siege section to provide a deeper level of detail would be a good idea, too, if the sources allow this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

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 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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy edits on 20th Lancers (Pakistan)

Hi Australian Rupert

We seem to be tripping over each other copy editing the same article, 20th Lancers (Pakistan). I began working on it yesterday as part of the April WP:GOCE Blitz, and am not far off wrapping up. You may be editing as part of the WP:MILHIST project? I see you're focussing on slightly different things than me at the moment. I don't want to get in your way - but by the same token would like to complete my copy edit and note it on the Blitz board. Not sure how to resolve the tangle! Regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@FiveFaintFootprints: G'day, no worries, I will stop editing the article now and will leave you to it. It's pretty much time for sleep here now. Thanks for your work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I was just about to come back and say I've pretty much finished anyway :) Just giving the copy another look-over and then I'll get out. I think you've been doing a number of fixes that go beyond the copy edit, and that I wouldn't have tackled. Sorry for the crossed wires, and hope it didn't interfere with your work. Good night, then - and thanks. regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Word :)

I wanted to run a couple of thoughts by you, because based on your experience, you'll have a better sense of whether they're fair.

My objective is always to maximise Wikipedia use; even when I disagree with criticism, it often inspires me to review the article, and improve it (Charles II of Spain being the latest). I'm hoping this comes across in that spirit.

First; In general, many Military history articles seem to ignore the end user, ie the general reader. Examples include lack of context, (as an historian, and ex-army officer, I've always been taught to ask Why here? why now? why who?), no campaign maps (they're not hard), or pictures, plus huge chunks of wording. As you may have noticed, I like research; that means constantly omitting stuff interesting to me, but not helpful to a general reader. A lot of our colleagues seem to think the more detail, the better.

One approach might be to add some sort of explicit User Friendly rating to the B list - that's where it needs to start. I'm sure they're implicit, but raising visibility makes it clear 'this is who we're writing for.' I get the impression many editors haven't answered that, or don't know.

Second (you'll appreciate why I'm funnelling to you for now :)) I'm frankly stunned by some of the 'A class' articles I've seen. Other opinions are available; what should concern us all is what's driving it ie too many mates reviews (I've seen this comment repeatedly ie 'I know your stuff is great.')

I don't need any action; I just wanted to raise it. I'm going to spend more time on B articles and the unassisted stuff, because I think that's the right place to embed actions, but stay away from A assessments; plenty of other stuff to do, don't need to frustrate myself, but I did want to make it visible.

Thanks for all your hard work in general. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: G'day, I think some projects (see for example WikiProject Croatia and WikiProject Poland for instance -- there would be others, also) use a sixth criterion in their checklist called "accessibility", which is probably similar to what you are talking about. I believe it would be technically possible to include this in the MILHIST assessment checklist, too, but it would need a well-attended discussion on the main MILHIST talk page to establish consensus to do so. Probably best to raise it with one of the project's co-ordinators, also, via WT:MHCOORD before opening the wider discussion. Regarding A-class reviews, the overall process -- like many others on Wikipedia -- is much more robust than it used to be (compare some of the some of the earliest A-class reviews for instance with now), but if it needs more improvement then I'd encourage you to also raise your concerns with the co-ordinators. If you have concerns about specific articles or reviews, in the first instance it would probably be best to raise your concerns on the article talk pages, or directly with the reviewer. That said, it is best to assume good faith, though; while you might not feel that a reviewer has raised all the points you might raise, it doesn't mean that they are rubber stamping a review. Reviewers pick up on, and focus on, different things. Some reviewers consider some things more important than others. Its the nature of a volunteer workforce. Finally, regarding maps -- if you have a skill in this area, you might be interested in helping out at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, or you might be able to assist with some of the articles in this category: Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Operation Boardman

Thanks for the ping; I saw it this morning (lurking, one day I may have time to edit again!). I had a quick look through various sources and there isn't much on that operation, so a redirect is probably the right move. I'll see if there are any snippets to pull out of sources and add to the Avalanche article :) Errant (chat!) 09:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@ErrantX: G'day, Tom, great to hear from you -- hope you are well. Thanks for taking a look at this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a word or two.

I expanded an article about a regimental song Badluram ka Badan. It is connected to the Battle of Kohima. When I was going through the Battle of Kohima I noticed that you have contributed a large part to the article and was wondering if what I summarised in Badluram ka Badan fit into the larger picture of the Battle of Kohima? Most of the sources I found don't really give away much concrete information. Also, can I nominate this article, Badluram ka Badan, with the limited content that it has, (improvements aside), as a GA? Regards DTM (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

G'day, DTM, I hope you are well. For general coverage on the siege, Rooney's Burma Victory might help provide some context (chapter 6 covers the siege of Kohima). Regarding taking it through to GA, I would recommend taking a look at a few the examples here first: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Music#Songs. That will hopefully give you some ideas about what is required. To be honest, I think currently it is a bit light on at the moment and potentially would not meet coverage requirements for GA. I think it will need a bit more copy editing and if possible, I'd suggest trying to find a relevant image, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm alright. Hmmm, going through other GA songs would be a good idea, maybe try and find a military song that is a GA. And yes, the article is a little light, I had my doubts. Will see how it can be expanded and go through the chapter suggested. Thanks for the ce's. DTM (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Anzac Day

G'day AR. Hope you had an ok Anzac Day. Was rather weird without dawn services, but good to see a few on TV. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, it was quite surreal; where I live most houses in the street had candles out in their driveways and people standing in their doorways around dawn. In some regards it was a bit more intimate than the big gatherings that usually occur. We live quite close to base, so the Last Post and national anthem reverberated off the hill behind us and across the whole suburb. It was special in its own way -- gave me a moment to quietly reflect on what the day means and all those who are no longer able to share it. I hope you had a good day, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

finally got to the point

have finished cleaning up oz politics and espionage unknown importance (havent gone anywhere near milhist intel though)

and am about to work on [McKenzie-Smith, Graham R (2018), The Unit Guide : the Australian Army 1939-1945, Big Sky Publishing Pty Ltd. ; Mount Pleasant, Western Australia : Grimwade Publications, ISBN 978-1-925675-14-6] - I need to have at least one other sounding board re this - either on or off wiki as translating the sheer volume of data is a bit daunting - please indicate one way or other - one idea is to have every unit mentioned in the guide as an entry in wikidata... trust all is well JarrahTree 02:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I don't mind chatting here about it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
wherever - the idea of the units named within the 6 volumes is too large for a typical mega wp en list - and I am in most cases dead against them (mega lists even if they are dynamic or useful) - the idea of each as designated by gms (my acronym) is of complexity as his acronyms do leave some milhist people scratching their heads - the possibility that even a smidgeon of the full range identified by gms exists on wp en gives me the bee gees as to how to work with anything but the unit name - his breakdown into sections and volumes might well differ from awm or other bodies holding info - so the more I think about it the potential full list of units in TUG (another acronym to save brain space) is very unlikely to ever see the light here on wp en. So - having been involved in some commons/data/wp en mix and match projects - most cases quite good tidy up of links -

I think the putting most of it on data as a way to go

can you think of an argument to have any of the unit list here on wp en? JarrahTree 05:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I might have jumped the gun a bit - I think 99of9 aka toby has given me a link that answers all my questions - https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/#/catalog/2397 - once I have dealt with that maybe I will get back to you :) - maybe 2021 some time... unless there is anyone else interested that might speed it up before christmas... JarrahTree 05:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries at all -- hope it works out. To be honest, I don't know much about this side of Wikipedia at all. I really only know how to break things. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
nope - realise that the toby list is simply of what the awm has that relates to a unit in any war or context - compared to the actual 13,000 units that the oz military had in the 2ww only - it never simplifies :) but it will work out - will show you bits over time for checking - not yet though... still crawling literally JarrahTree 06:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the last week dedicated to Australia and Oceania, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 11:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Vernon Sturdee - in need of FA delist / review?

I've raised a few concerns about the article Vernon Sturdee on it's talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Aeonx (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeonx: G'day, hope you are well. In this case, it is probably best to raise the issue with Hawkeye7 as they were the original nominator and probably best placed to respond to your concerns. I will ping them now. Potentially, the issues you identify can be addressed without the need for a FAR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the Australian Army

I did an update of the graphic of the structure. Seems only the 17th Sustainment Bde and 16 Regiment Royal Australian Artillery were to change. If there are other changes, please let me know. Best, noclador (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Noclador: G'day, thanks for this. 20 Surv and Target Acq Regiment is now 20 Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you for the info, noclador (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

35th Division (UK)

Thanks for the prod, it made class B. I suppose I'd better finish the article now... How can I get some other division articles reviewed? (20th (light), 23rd (UK, WW1), both 50th (Northumbrian))?Usedtoknowthat (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtoknowthat: G'day, nice work with these articles. If you list them at WP:MHA, someone will come along and assess them against the MILHIST Project's B class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

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 up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

U.S versus US usage

In the article Drive on Munda Point which you have edited extensively I notice usage of both US and U.S. as a abbreviation for United States. According to the Manual of Style there is no preferred style and the usage is established at the editor's choice. When I encounter an article with both usages evident I generally edit one or the other to agree with whichever has the most instances used with a bias towards U.S. if the count is close. In the United States, particularly in the military, the use of U.S. is preferred. It seems that in the rest of the English speaking world the style US is more prevalent. I hesitate to edit the article in question either way because I don't wish to offend my dear Wiki-friend in "Oz". The use of US sets my teeth on edge; what do I do? It is just a personal preference, I know. The article is about United States Army units. The article Drive on Munda Point is otherwise an easy B Class article and I wish to rate it as such. Hope your military career is doing well; I know your Wiki-career is exemplary! Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cuprum17: G'day, hope you are well. Over here we tend to use "US" in civilian spheres (I believe). At work I am told to use "U.S. Army" and "U.S. Marines" but "US troops" (when it isn't being used as part of a proper noun). In regards to the Wikipedia usage, I don't have a strong preference any way for this article. Happy for you to adjust as you see fit as you have more experience with this than I. I don't use US English much, so I am more than happy to be corrected if I have introduced any "Australianisms" into the text. Work has been hectic. Coming up to posting order time, and interim reporting etc, so it will get more so in the coming weeks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I am well, but just had my 73rd birthday...when you get that old...well you will find out! Good luck on your posting. I hope your family is well. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Happy birthday! Yes, the family is well -- kids are being home schooled by my wife who is working from home at the moment, which is a bit stressful for all of them, but otherwise we can't complain. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rupert! :D

Hello! I only now found out that this whole talk thing existed and it is very interesting. I don't have much to say, I just wanted to try it out. I had no idea there was this kind of community in Wikipedia. Thank you so much for all of your edits, as far as I can tell they are very helpful. I hope you have a wonderful day ^_^ (I don't know how to do the Dapperfrogs (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC) date thing so I'll put it here: 27.5.2020)

Edit: Looks like the date thing happens automatically. I did not expect it to appear in the middle of my sentence. How do you split paragraphs, by the way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapperfrogs (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dapperfrogs: G'day, you can sign your posts by using four tildes (e.g. "~~~~") at the end of your talkpage post. You can split paragraphs by hitting enter and leaving a full clear line between blocks of text. The welcome links I have placed on your talk page should hopefully help with some of your questions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Stuff on dashes etc

I edit articles as part of my job, so I may well be more fanatical on the topic :), but the dashes are part of a broader issue. You have a tendency to break sentences up, in a way that can be confusing, and often leads to repetition. The edits I made on Kula were largely driven by this; I've tried to show why I found the original wording confusing.

As I've said before, I get honest feedback on a regular basis, so I'm used to it, and I see it as a positive because I'm always looking to improve. Its a suggestion :)

"By midnight, the U.S. ships passed Visu Visu Point. At 01:06 on 6 July, off Kolombangara, (I've been diving around here - its a big area, and looking at the map, its not clear where contact occurs in relation to Visu Visu) the task group (is this the same as US ships?) came into contact with a Japanese reinforcement group—consisting of two transport divisions (30th and 11th) (what is meant by reinforcement group? I'm assuming these are land forces carried on board the ships) and a support unit (3rd Destroyer Squadron)—commanded by Admiral Teruo Akiyama. In total the Japanese force consisted of ten destroyers (is this the same as 3rd destroyer?). These were loaded with 2,600 combat troops bound for Vila, (again, are these 30th and 11th? or some other force? are they on destroyers or transport ships?) which was being used as a staging point for moving reinforcements to Munda. The Japanese ships were divided into two forces; a formation of three escorts (the destroyers?) trailing the main column (which is what? the other seven? plus transports?) first came under attack.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I have made a few more adjustments, including clarifying the locations (although I'm limited to the notes on Morison's map, unfortunately). "Reinforcement group" here is a specific term for a number of ships performing a specific role. In this case Morison refers to the entire Japanese force as a "reinforcement group" (Morison, p. 162). The group was made up of three numerically designated elements: the 3rd Destroyer Squadron (i.e. "the support unit") and the 11th and 30th Transport Divisions (i.e. the first and second "transport units"). "Support unit" and "transport unit" are again Morison's terms and are used as nouns to describe a number of ships organised together for a specific role (i.e. it is a task organised element, kind of like "guard", "screen", and "counter penetration force" are role specific in a land combat force, and might consist of several different numerically designated units or sub-units grouped together to carry out a specific role within the larger force). The ground troops would have been on the ships that made up the two transport units (seven destroyers in total), and would have most likely have been from the Japanese Eighth Area Army (although the sources don't say this, so I haven't included it). The escort destroyers of the "support unit" were the first to be fired on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Four Years of Adminship

Wishing AustralianRupert a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - Nursing Service Cross

Thanks for picking up the duplication on Nursing Service Cross. If you have the time available, I’d love some input on the following:

  • How did you find it for readability?
  • Do you feel it needs anything more by way of information?
  • I wondered if I should include a mention that the current CSM of Army is an NSC recipient - thoughts?
  • Any other suggestions?

Kangaresearch (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Overall, it looks pretty good to me. I would suggest mentioning the 2010 "suspension" in the History section -- currently it is only mentioned in the introduction. If possible, perhaps mention the reason for this, if it can be reliably sourced. Yes, you could mention Kim's current position as CSM Forces Command, but I would keep the mention very brief. The information can be sourced here, though: [22]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate all your help - agree with all of the edits (all uncontroversial). That’s useful feedback on whether the "suspension" on nominations should be in the lead or the history section (as to whether it is notable for the lead). I’m inclined to agree with you, as it lightens the lead section.
It was an element that I focused on in my edits (the Nursing Service Cross is still active, not defunct, and the 2010 "suspension" was a policy decision, not a legislative instrument one [although Defence decided to throttle the Nursing Service Cross even earlier - reallocating nominations for it to other decorations and awards - but that is first hand knowledge so not something I can cite]) - that and locating all the missing citations, tracking down their Special Gazettes, and doing a lot of learning on improving tables. It was an interesting exercise and I quite enjoyed researching it. Thanks again! Kangaresearch (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I’ve implemented those suggestions at Nursing Service Cross - diffs here [[23]] - can you run an eye over it for me in case I missed anything? Kangaresearch (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kangaresearch: G'day, looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts on this article -- do you have plans to work on any of the other Australian medals or decorations? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Thanks, very much appreciated. I really enjoyed that project (I think I may have found a calling in uncommon Australian honours and awards lol), especially in comparison to my current (which has ground to a halt, wheels spinning but getting nowhere - but it does have a very interesting military history element in its background that gives insight into primary elements). The Nursing Service Award was great in that the number of awardees was not massive, say like for the Medal of the Order of Australia or the Conspicuous Service Cross (of which there are a vast number), and I got to learn about the people who had been awarded it (rather than just making sure descriptions were consistent with Letters Patent, etc). I was also involved in a Nursing Service Cross nomination write-up in my past (but didn’t know that much about it then) so there was some latent interest I guess. So much research went into this project (most of which didn’t get published, but which helped me to weigh relevancy and identify quite interesting factiods that you just don’t get from a surface scan of the key documents).
I wouldn’t ever claim to be a great writer (a little too fond of fact cramming, because I find a lot of supporting facts quite interesting), but I am very proficient at research, particularly for open source, and I quite enjoy that aspect (I like the details, finding and cross-checking them). While not the visible pinnacle of the pyramid - researching and locating, followed by quality of referencing mark-up, that’s the very wide base good quality articles rest on in my view (the former is not new to me, but I’ve been learning quickly with the latter - tedious, but a great mark-up means you don’t even need to look at the source as all the information is right there).
Did you have something in mind you’d like me to do some editing on? I should say I still am not 100% done on the Nursing Service Cross yet, but its work on the hidden stuff that I do intermittently (adding quotes and fast page/section links to references; improving web links to ones less likely to go dead; would like to improve the table links, especially on rank to something other than those overwhelmingly ethnocentric US articles but only star rank Australian ranks get any Wikipedia pages of their own; etc) but that is not something that stops me from looking at another project. Regards, Kangaresearch (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
G'day, there are a few that could probably be expanded a little, and referenced if you were keen. For instance: Commendation for Distinguished Service, Distinguished Service Medal (Australia) and Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal. Once again, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The Humanitarian Overseas Service Medal would be very much in my interest, in a lot of ways similar to the Nursing Service Cross, in that it is somewhat obscure, has some pretty interesting factiods, and not a massive number of awardees. That is a great recommendation (and it has one of the most attractively designed ribbons imo in the Australian Honours and Awards system). I was also thinking about the Australian Antarctic Medal as well but I haven’t looked at the article (it may be perfect already). I will certainly take a look at both articles and see if there is anything I can contribute. And thank you again for all your help and quite useful suggestions - I hope you don’t mind if I ask you to take a look at my contributions (when I feel they are ready for a look) in future as you’ve been a great copywriter on the Nursing Service Cross, in that you’ve been very considered and approachable and knowledgeable. Kangaresearch (talk)
No worries, I would be happy to take a look when you are ready. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I’ve had the chance to take a look at both the AAM and HOSM pages - both are rated at start quality (and Mid/Low on importance). HOSM gets a few more daily page hits than the AAM, but the AAM has only 36 awardees (one a with bar) whereas it is 367 awardees for the HOSM (so too many to drill down on). It is neck and neck, all things considered, but as I love a drill down (and I think the possibility of someone unusual popping up might be in the cards) I think the winner is the AAM. I might do a bit more work on the NSC before I jump articles though. Kangaresearch (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
In appreciation and respect for helpful copywriting on the Wikipedia article Nursing Service Award Kangaresearch (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Hope you have a good weekend! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
In recognition for, and in appreciation of, your approachability and willingness to give of your time to help others improve Wikipedia, even after article copywriting is completed. Kangaresearch (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nursing Service Cross - Added notes and some tweaks

@AustralianRupert: I have made a few visible tweaks to this article, as well as added notes, so if you have the time, can you run your ruler over it again. Ideally, I’d like to get it to GA class, although I’m not ready yet to submit it. I think the notes help lighten it a little. I’m not really happy with this sentence fragment - two classes of the Royal Red Cross between the Boer War and the Vietnam War - so if you have some suggestions on that one, that would be great. If it is all good with you, after review, I’ll just tighten up the hidden stuff from here on in, until I think it is ready for GA assessment. Kangaresearch (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I had a look at that sentence and couldn't come up with a better one (sorry, I am a bit brain dead from work today). One further suggestion I have is to remove the self pointing links to "NSC" in the article. Most of these are in the post nominal template and can be removed by adding "|unlinked=NSC" to the templates. Before nominating for GA can I suggest potentially putting it up for a peer review, just to get another set of eyes on it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve still got a fair few things I’d like to do first on the article before going for GA (a better image is top of my list), and I’ve already asked another regular GA article writer to take an informal look when they get some time (a pre-screen), but ultimately that is where I’d like to get it in within the next month or two. Hadn’t thought of that, thanks for the tip on how to remove that wiki-linking from that post-nominal function, which was part of the original table. I’m glad you thought the changes made since your B-class recat of the article were all improvements (or at least hadn’t backtracked anything) - that was the most important thing. The notes gave me that opportunity to put in some interesting factiods too, without densifying the body too much. Thanks for looking at it. Kangaresearch (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately "|unlinked=NSC" caused any other post-nominal to drop off, so used "|list=" in lieu (did mean I had to put in any wiki-links manually for the other post-nominals, but there weren’t too many). Kangaresearch (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Did some further tidying up of the hidden stuff - have changed all Gazette links where possible (only 1 reference remains pointed to old GG website, only one to have that Special Gazette copy) to the more stable long-life Legislation website, added page locator hashes to all PDF links, managed to locate nearly all of the missing Gazettes (that weren’t picked up previously due to text recognition issues in those Gazettes) - no more possible, and just some other tidy-up. Have cleared all my task list for this article bar getting some better images. Kangaresearch 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: It was "Creation of Nursing Service Award" but I wanted to change it to sentence case only, for consistency. It is too wordy at present - subheadings that are pretty short are best. What are your thoughts on a one word subheading? Establishment doesn’t quite right to me (given establishment was when it was instituted), nor does Creation for that matter - what about Development? or Origin (not so sure on that one)? Any other thoughts?

Looks much better with the new images - did think about including an image of the bar as well, but it would make that section look too busy I thought (after I added the reverse image and looked at how it flowed). Kangaresearch 09:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, "Origin" as a section header could work -- I note that the Victoria Cross article uses this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Wilco on that then. Thanks for continuing to be a sounding board. Kangaresearch 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: FYI - Cinderella157 took an independent look at Nursing Service Cross and reported "It is well structured and appears to be comprehensive" (I implemented a suggested recommendation too), so consensus is building, and with it, the chances of a positive GA rating outcome. Kangaresearch 14:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RE-DRAFTING OF MILNE BAY ANECDOTE

Thanks to your suggestion Rupert, I've done something very much along those lines now! Please see Battle of Milne Bay talk page. If you want to just take it, change it, and finalise it within the actual article I don't mind/ i.e. I would appreciate it, no matter what; OR to just critique it, leaving me to take the last step, is also fine of course - anything will keep me happy now - Regards, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.19.49 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A problem with the sources in The American series of The Three Investigators

Hi @AustralianRupert: I have added a reference to the list of books in the series “The Three Investigators”, but it says Archived from the original on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). I tried to delete the dates to check if it would show just the “archived from original” part, but it didn’t change anything. How can I fix it so that it will show the actual dates? Thanks in advance, -RiverThames27 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@RiverThames27: G'day, I have made a slight tweak with this edit: [24]. Does that resolve the issue? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you very much! -RiverThames27 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have added a few sources, but in source number 8 it does the same problem that it does in 1. I can’t find any difference between source 8 and the previous ones that show up perfectly fine. Can you please try to find what the problem is? Thanks in advance, -RiverThames27 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
G'day, I think I've fixed it now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! -RiverThames27 (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

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 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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Big ugly red square

You're kidding me? What is it doing there in the first place? It's like ... red. Everyone knows what red is. Tony (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, Tony, it is there to show the formation's unit colour patch. Each brigade and battalion etc had their own and they were generally unique (and tied to the unit/formation's identity). Some such patches were quite complex (multiple colours and shapes) while others were quite simple like this one (basic shape, single colour). I am happy to consider what the optimal size would be if you can point me to a policy guideline, but this would affect hundreds of articles so it needs to be considered deliberately rather than on an ad hoc basis. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not an area that interests me. But really, it was SO big and distracting. I could see it in my peripheral vision as I read the opening text. Seems like there can't be one optimal size if they differ in shape/number of colours. So why not simply reduce the size to something that's not so garish every time you happen to open one of those articles? Especially if it's a single colour. Tony (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
G'day, went with 80px as that seems to be similar what the current brigade pages use (there is some variation but it is generally 70 px to 80 px with a couple of outliers either way) -- I have adjusted all of the motor brigade infoboxes now for consistency. Will work through the other brigades shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That's nicer for readers. Thank you indeed. Tony (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Australian Antarctic Medal

Hi AustralianRupert, since you are an administrator, can you do me a favour and review File:Australian Antarctic Medal Reverse.jpeg

It had a flag put on it, for an administrator to review, as an unnecessary non-free image (I believe because it has been misunderstood, given that the obverse [the info-box image] and reverse of the medal are unique and distinct from each other [and any other honours and awards], and both images are reasonably necessary to aid identification and illustrate description of the obverse and reverse faces of the medal). It does not exceed fair use principles to use both, as a duplicate image (as would the same face taken from another angle or put in another setting, like its presentation box, would).

I have beefed up the non-free fair use rationale to highlight this (I had thought it self explanatory but perhaps it needed a bit more emphasis). Thanks in advance. Kangaresearch 15:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kangaresearch: G'day, given that you and I have worked together on medal articles, I'd suggest it is probably best to allow an uninvolved admin to address this. I agree with your assessment, though. As such, can I suggest that you post your arguments on the image's talk page here: File talk:Australian Antarctic Medal Reverse.jpeg? I will also add a comment there once you've posted your comment there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to raise it with person who flagged it, but they just brushed me off and ignored the self explanatory expansion. I know the usage fully complies with the guidelines, but that’s the annoying thing I find here, logic can be discarded and someone can just randomly come along and hold you hostage (not due to malicious conduct, but just because they can’t be bothered spending more than the least amount of time possible doing something, so they don’t look at the whole and don’t bother reading through things) to an untenable interpretation they have locked themselves into. It kills effort and interest, because you get trapped into someone else’s dogmatic and fixed view. I would agree that as your have reviewed and edited Nursing Service Cross you would not be classified as independent on that article, but thankfully you have had no involvement on Australian Antarctic Medal (you didn’t even flag it as something to work on, like you did for HOSM) and apart from the NSC article we have had no prior involvement, so the spectre of a biased view is thankfully avoided. Kangaresearch 10:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Another user has already agreed retain since, but it would be good to have yourself review it given your experience (both generally, and with honours and medals) and administrator role. Kangaresearch 17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Quick update. While the editor who put the quick deletion flag on the file ignored the consensus and ignored all communication, thankfully experienced administrator Explicit came along and removed the inappropriate flag independently. A good outcome. Kangaresearch 02:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Evening AustralianRupert, can I request an independent look at the Talk:Australian Antarctic Medal page, in respect of what is a rather unexpected line of heat over Letters Patent. I've had some very minor dealing with the other editor before, but nothing of that particular tone (maybe a little blunt on occasion before but not emotional). Would have said communications were acceptable until now (as Talk page isn't for making comments about other editors, but on article improvements). I've already reviewed his claims in detail twice, but in both cases his interpretations of guidelines are misleading (or just misunderstood) in my view (trying to apply general principles to argue a particular personal style preference, that are contrary to the guidelines on legal referencing). He seems upset I won't change it myself (as it is consistent with MoS from my understanding). No action required from you - other than to use you as a sounding board.
FYI, the rebuilt table is finally finished and has been moved to the article. It may be the case that given its size it may need to be moved to its own page, but I'm not sure on this yet. Would also appreciate your thoughts on that too. Still more work to go though, as need to rewrite lead now body is done, and I'll be removing the statistics section as it is something of an unnecessary duplication that might foul up a GA review. Thanks again for all your mentoring and input, it has been really valuable to have a measured and thoughtful sounding board such as yourself to give input on the work. Kangaresearch 11:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
G'day, for better or worse, Wikipedia has a "house style" that doesn't always match that which you might be used to in your day job; nor does it always match what you might expect based on common sense but we are bound to it (within reason). (Incidentally, the last time I had something published, I cringed at the style used by the journal's editor). Anyway, because of this, sometimes minor things can fixate us all if we let them. For your own enjoyment/sanity it is sometimes best to just go with the flow and try to find a way not to let minor things get to you. That can be very difficult at times and is easier said than done. (In this regard, have been meaning to stop editing this site for several years now -- nearly achieved it a few years back when I went overseas on a "trip", but ended up coming back for some reason). Regarding the question of capitalisation, I offer the following. For personal reasons, I would always prefer to capitalise Marine for instance, but Wikipedia would probably insist otherwise in some circumstances. Same with Commanding Officer, Regimental Sergeant Major, the Army, "the Mess" etc. This is how I have written these things for the best part of two decades. Still, the vast majority of our editors don't share this perspective, and even more of our readers lack the same formative experience that has instilled this in me (which is probably a good thing, if I consider it deeply). The arguments that can take place around these aspects often aren't worth the heartache and often miss the important aspect -- improving coverage, adding refs, etc. I believe C means well -- and is just trying to help in his own way -- he has helped me quite considerably in the past and I'm sure has the best of intentions. Re the article's expansion -- nice work. For GA, can I suggest that you will probably need to cite the first three paragraphs of the "List of recipients" section, even if you just duplicate refs used elsewhere using WP:NAMEDREFS?. Anyway, sorry, I am going to have to log off now. I have stayed up well beyond my bed time and have an important briefing in the morning. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look AustralianRupert, and as always, picking up some of those small things with your copywriter hat on. Yes, lead and descriptive text preceding the table are still WIP and will be referenced tomorrow (references already in article for most, so it's mostly just some copy and paste). The problem I often have is when there isn't a consistent standard in use in Wikipedia articles (as is the case here), but someone tries to argue there is (and gets rather shrill with it), and mostly on very thin ground at best (but often worser than that). As I'm responsible for all my own edits, I'm a bit more discerning when someone is asking me to change something for them. I agree that avoiding unpleasant badgering about it does often guide things though (which is not really the spirit of Wikipedia's policies). In this case, I think as views are clear and as personal attribution remarks were made, it is best to draw a line under it (as the policies recommend) for now. I do understand the reasons though why Wikimedia's board of trustees are making new rules to improve civility as a core value - there is definitely some brittleness out there (and I've been surprised that some who don't think this policy applies to them should know better). Still it's more a side show than the main course thankfully. Re: capitalisation - you can blame the Boston Manual of Style (which is dominant North American MoS book), which due to the ethnocentric editor base, is largely copied as the Wikipedia MoS (the BMoS hates capitals lol). That said, personal preferences are irrelevant to Wikipedia (as editors should be aware) - if a consistent style exists and is supported by RfC outcomes, then that is the house style. The difficulty is when you have someone cherry picking and bush lawyering a particular slant, that ignores that it is not specific to the issue at hand, that you run into very fixed views (the situation often is that they are trying to create a consistent style rule, but one which has not gone through RfC, to match a personal preference). One of the drawbacks of principles based policy, in that it is often misused due to its breadth of loose scope (when it is the specific Wikipedia policy that is supposed to take precedence over the generalised Wikipedia policy where any alleged inconsistency exists - not the other way around).
While I'll still be kicking tyres on the AAM for a bit, I've been thinking about where to next. I've got a few minor bits lined up, but I've already done most of the research on the Star of Courage and it is looking rather unloved (which is very surprising) so it is likely next to be up (and thankfully doesn't require building a 100 row plus table). Kangaresearch 14:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Query

G'day AR, do you have a copy of Where Australians Fought: The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles to hand? Just wondering if the landing at Weston in North Borneo by the 2/32nd was on 16 or 17 June. I believe it is on p. 252. Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, page 253 in the 1998 edition has them landing on 16 June around Padas Bay to capture Weston. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for assistance

​​Hi AustralianRupert, can I ask for a quick favour? Could you take a minute to look at my user page and see if there are any errors you can see. Thanks. Kangaresearch 17:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, nothing particularly stands out to me -- your userpage is a personal thing, so what you put there is largely up to you. There are some exceptions, of course, such as use of non-free content, which isn't allowed, and other things that fall within certain policies (e.g. WP:NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and a few others). I have a very basic understanding of mark up, so I can only pick up a few errors here and there, unfortunately. Are there any particular concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I have asked for an explanation as there is no error as far as I can determine (but they have not given any explanation). It displays correctly and has been in use elsewhere for some considerable time (years) without issue, and I got a notice 21 hrs ago saying my User Page had been reviewed and approved by Eddie891 (seems it went through some automatic review process, as I didn’t request it). So I’m not sure why I got such a loaded and rude in tone message about it (after it had passed the review process). This is the thing that I find a bit surprising on Wikipedia - just out of the blue, you get some random incivility when there is no reason for it (didn’t have this issue when editing without an account). Thankfully there are good people such as yourself about so that is thankfully not the only impression people get here. Kangaresearch 09:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
G'day, ok I see you are referring to this [25]. Apart from the slight change WRT the border, not much stands out to me as different. The coding aspect is beyond me, I'm sorry-- I really only know how to break things these days. Izno is a very experienced editor so they would have a reason for this change; however, I am not sure I agree with the premise that one should edit another editor's user page unless there is an urgent need (i.e. significant policy violation like attack pages, copyright violations etc). I can only speak for myself, but I would probably ask the relevant user if they wanted a hand with their userpage if I spotted an error that didn't fit into one of those urgent categories. Regarding incivility, yes this is sometimes an aspect of Wikipedia -- not its best aspect -- but sometimes too what appears to be rudeness can be a misunderstanding due to the impersonal nature of the interface (i.e. it is easy to misinterpret what someone is saying if you can't see their facial expressions or hear the tone of their voice). The large majority of editors do try their best to be constructive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I called on the assistance of a friend who is a HTML 5 guru - he said there are two issues present in his view, one was technical formatting (mainly to put in a few spaces), but the other appeared to be nothing more than a personal styling preference of that editor passed off as something else. Anyway, he showed me what I could do to tidy up, and ran it through a HTML 5 validator to confirm it was all issue free. It was unnecessary and not required to remove the border of the user message box however, as he identified that as a personal issue, not a technical one. He did say coders though do tend to lack decent communication skills, so I should just take that rudeness as a by-product of that symptom. Anyway, as my user page has already received a review and passed, and I’ve gotten an all-clear from an expert (after a little housekeeping), that’s the end to it. Thanks for taking a look. Kangaresearch 16:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some more snark got delivered again, with a veiled threat repeated. It is very disappointing and totally unnecessary. I may have to make a formal complaint if it continues. Kangaresearch 05:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
G'day, there probably isn't anything that could be actioned from an admin perspective regarding such a complaint, although I agree that their continued engagement does not seem very welcoming. I remain convinced, though, that there must be some reason they feel this issue important, though, but I can't put my finger on it. I'd suggest just ignoring them, although if you wish you can ask them politely to desist from posting on your talk page if you are finding it offputting. This is, by custom, usually respected but ultimately cannot be totally enforced (sometimes there are valid reasons that compel an editor to post on your talk page per site policy, although these are rare). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The crux of it is that the editor in question considered it offensive that his unannounced edit, that only had the description "lint", was reverted by me. I reverted it because the one word edit summary was vague and opaque, it was unclear what the editor was trying to achieve, and I therefore contested the edit (as is the entitlement of any editor on Wikipedia). What should have followed was the normal resolution process for contested edits, but alas that did not happen. What has followed is essentially a thinly veiled WP:GRUDGE, which is disappointing. I definitely believe the issue is closed now, having gone out of my way to find a compromise that didn’t wreck my box border. I considered doing a hat/hab (as another long time editor has done on their talk page) or discussion close template to draw a line under it, but it is recommended that someone other than those involved do it. I don’t think there is anything positive to be gained by having repeat performances of commentary such as that received. Having had reverted edits myself, I know my response is to ask "why?", not to be "how very dare you". Just seems so unnecessary to me. Kangaresearch 11:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PMC Honours and Awards database

Onto something more relevant, I assumed that the PMC Honours and Awards database would be accurate but I’ve discovered multiple errors since I’ve been doing the research for the Australian Antarctic Medal. First, there were some entries for Polar Medals that don’t exist (the first clue is they are for dates after 1982, when federal government nominations for the Imperial Polar Medal ceased - I’ve cross-checked both the London and Commonwealth of Australia Gazette to confirm (they did relate though to an Antarctic Medal award but somehow doubled up). Then I found an AO entry for an AAM recipient I nearly missed because the middle name went missing on the AO record. This was followed by some AAM awards with an incorrect award date and now I have a confirmed AAM recipient (gazetted and confirmed by the AAD) who doesn’t have an entry at all (and there were no anonymous awards for that year in the PMO H&A search by award). I must admit I’m pretty surprised at the number of errors found in these entries - and now take great care cross-checking against the Gazette (which is the authoritative source). Kangaresearch 12:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I have found one or two errors there in the past, too, but if you email them with your evidence (such as the Gazette scan) they will look into it and try to correct the site if possible. Definitely a good idea to double-check, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It certainly has warned me not to treat it as authoritative, but as a secondary source, and to rely on the original Gazette notices as primary - the original Australian Antarctic Medal has more than two factual errors because of it, but they’ll be corrected when I put the new table in (I am halfway through finishing it in the sandbox, as it would have been too disruptive to the article to do it live in stages, and it is too much work to do in one sitting). That’s a good tip about getting the database corrected. Thanks. Kangaresearch 04:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Here are the examples:
  • Doesn’t exist [26] - seems to be a glitch that duplicated [27]. AAD confirm he never received a Polar Medal.
  • Schmitter did receive a Polar Medal [28] just [29] in 1980 not 1987
  • Rachinger [30] and Williams [31] have a date granted of 21 August 1989 (which was the first clue) - the Gazette clears shows it was the usual Mid-Winter announcement [32] with the rest of that year’s awardees.
There are a few more but you get the idea Kangaresearch 04:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Another clanger - Ray James Pike [33] gets his Christian names cribbed wrongly from the preceding awardee [34]. First one of that type of error noticed. Kangaresearch 06:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

hey there, a user "Litti Chokha" continuously modifying reliably sourced content of the article Kumaon Regiment as per their personal preferences, Beginning from lead section, the source nowhere says that It (Regiment) recruits Ahirs from North India exclusively and has equal composition of troops WhiteRaven335 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, have you attempted to discuss your concerns with the editor about their changes? Posting your concerns to the talk page of the article in question and asking them to engage in discussion there might resolve the issue. If that does not work, I would suggest dispute resolution and then finally, if there are ongoing editor conduct issues, WP:ANI might be able to assist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 25

Hi AustralianRupert, as someone who contributed to the original consensus to retain the image of the Reverse of the Australian Antarctic Medal, following a speedy deletion tag being placed on it, this is a courtesy notice that the original tagger has re-nominated the file for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 25.

If you have a few moments to contribute to a second RfC on the retention of an image of the Reverse of the Australian Antarctic Medal, it would be appreciated. The history is fairly short, so takes no more than a minute or two of reading, and you are welcome to express any opinion you think is appropriate. Thanks in advance if you can spare the time. Kangaresearch 04:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing AustralianRupert (FYI have referenced the lead and pre-table text on the AAM, and done some general tidying). Kangaresearch 12:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC)

Hi AustralianRupert AustralianRupert

I created an article draft yesterday titled "Joint Artificial Intelligence Center" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joint_Artificial_Intelligence_Center_(JAIC)

which was rejected yesterday at midnight. I have resubmitted the article for re-review. today morning by fixing the grammar errors as the reviewer suggested.

I'd appreciate it if you could look it over.

-thank you

RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@RJJ4y7: G'day, I did a little copy editing -- one suggestion I have is to format the refs with the {{cite web}} template, or at least add in bibliographic details such as author, page name. publisher/website and accessdate. An image, if possible, would also help improve the draft. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the help.

Thoughts?

A flurry of editing on Australian Antarctic Medal after [35] - ideally someone other than me to review. While some references to guidelines, nothing specific (except Dr), although on an article for a medal about Antarctic science achievement I don't think the guideline was intended in the way being claimed (particularly in relation to a list). Especially where some now retain such titles and others have had them removed (should be consistent).

Thoughts? diff 1 [36] diff 2 [37] diff 3 [38] Mostly appears on my brief review to be style choice editing as opposed to house style. Kangaresearch 08:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

G'day, the edits seem to be ok to me. The choice of rear/back might be personal preference, although it is more likely a finer point of grammar that alludes me -- it's been a long day and I am getting ready to go away for a bit with work to deal with something well beyond my capabilities, so the brain isn't working the best -- regardless, it is minor from my perspective and is nothing to worry about, IMO. The addition of the link makes sense. Removal of titles should be consistent if done, as you say, but is probably just an oversight, and it generally it seems to conform with what I have seen picked up at featured list reviews etc, so is probably ok to me, also. Nice work with referencing the article, by the way -- it is looking quite good. Very interested to see your work on the Star of Courage if/when you work on that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AustralianRupert/Archive_12&oldid=1031742297"