Jump to content

User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Congratulations!

The Epic Barnstar
Awarded to Anotherclown, in recognition of his work in 2010 around the topic of battles involving Australia during the Vietnam War. Keep up the hard work! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Military historian of the Year 2010

The WikiProject Barnstar
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during the Indonesia–Malaysia Confrontation

Hi, I just noticed your new unofficial Wikiproject ;) Are you interested in developing the Military history of Australia during the Indonesia–Malaysia Confrontation to A class (or higher?). By my reading of it, all that's needed is expanded coverage of the Army operations, Naval operations and some more background on the politics of the war (including that Indonesian Army officers were being trained at Duntroon at the time!). I'd be very happy to work with you on this. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Nick. At some stage yes, however its more of an aspirational target than anything and I'll probably focus on the battles first at anyrate (for some reason I enjoy writting about them more). However I'm about to go back to work after 2 months off so I imagine my time is going to dry up somewhat (had a lot of leave built up from when I was overseas). All that aside of course I would be most happy to work with you on it (I note you have done a lot of work on this article so far anyway). In the meantime I'll see what I can dig up in regards sources to deal with your points for expansion. Especially the point about Duntroon which is a very interesting footnote to the conflict for sure! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I can borrow the relevant volumes of the official history (though this will probably take a week or so). Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I have both the Australian and New Zealand official histories. I also have a recent political history of the conflict "Conflict and Confrontation in South East Asia 1961-1965" by Matthew Jones (2002) and a recent military history "Confrontation: the War with Indonesia 1962-1966" by van der Bijl (2007). So I guess I probably have most of what would be required! Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! (and I'm a bit jealous). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
My wife hates it but I like to collect books! Anotherclown (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oz VC #2

I'm not going to do anything about it, because the problem will solve itself tomorrow.

However, I am going to whinge about your edit.

  • My edit comment was: (Hopefully, this will keep EVERYBODY happy for the next couple of days ...)
  • Your response was: (Undo - rm unreferenced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL, also the soldier has been identified as Lance Corporal "Ben" not Lcpl Bill and abbrev should only be used if introduced first per WP:MOS)
  • "unreferenced"
    • a) The standard approach there is to add [citation needed] - NOT to undo
    • b) You ought to be well aware that there are dozens of available references - all the more reason to add [citation needed]
  • "speculation" - I find it extremely hard to believe that this was not an attempt at humour by you. To quote John McEnroe: "You can not be serious."
  • "also ... " - OK. So fix it! It would have taken you much less effort to fix it than to write the edit comment!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I expected no less from you. If you're going to add something to an article its up to you to WP:PROVEIT not me. And yes it will be fixed tommorrow, hence WP:CRYSTAL. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"I expected no less from you." - What does that mean? Somehow, no matter how much I WP:AGF, I doubt that you mean it as a compliment. Please explain.
"If you're going to add something to an article its up to you to WP:PROVEIT not me." - Indeed. And that response from you is completely irrelevant. At no time did I even hint that you should do anything about references. If you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I am complaining that you reverted rather than added [citation needed].
I would prefer that you did not mis-represent me, and I would prefer you were less pugnacious in your responses. It might also be nice if you made even a minor attempt to answer the questions asked, and comment on the topics raised.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually to quote you above you said: "OK you fix it"... do you even remember what you wrote? How about you take responsibility for your own edits, rather than insisting that other editors fix them? YOU got the soldier's name wrong, YOU didn't add a citation for the material YOU added to an FA and YOU incorrectly used an abbreviation. Lastly as I clearly said in the edit summary the addition of the material itself was against wikipolicy IMO (WP:CRYSTAL). As such reverting seems more appropriate in such circumstances than a {{Cn}} tag. Anotherclown (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, if you quote me accurately and in context, I said, in response to also the soldier has been identified as Lance Corporal "Ben" not Lcpl Bill, "OK. So fix it!"
"do you even remember what you wrote?" - Yes. And far more accurately than you did!!
And as I said: It might also be nice if you made even a minor attempt to answer the questions asked, and comment on the topics raised. - the rest of your post/reply is on a different topic, and addresses none of the issues I raised or questions I asked. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW: As there are now more interesting things to talk about, and more useful things to do, I see little point in continuing this conversation - it doesn't look like it's going anywhere useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#OzVC2. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I dispute it and if you had actually read the fair use rationale provided you would have seen why. Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I read it, but I'm afraid it's not very convincing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be totally against Australian law to take a photo of this gentleman as he is a member of the SASR. Please reconsider your position. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There are other pics of his on the web, so it can't be quite as illegal as you make it out to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Total rubbish, the only photos available are those released by the Australian Department of Defence. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fut Perf, could you please direct me to these other photos? I am fairly sure that Anotherclown is correct here, but if you could list these photos then maybe we can work through this to see if there are indeed any free media images that could be used. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur - the identities of serving members of the SAS are legally protected, and there's no chance of any free photos of Corporal Roberts-Smith becoming available, particularly photos of him wearing his medal (which is his only claim to notability, hence the importance and irreplacability of this photo). This is a perfectly good fair use claim. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. I do not claim to be an expert on fair use but given that Moondyne on the article talk page and Nick-D on this page (both administrators) seem satisfied with its fair-use status, the arguments at least deserve to be heard at WP:IfD. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that this ended up being deleted. I thought that this kind of paranoia about copyright was a thing of the past... Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Man sitting on a dead horse (1876 - 1884).jpg – Hi, mate, while I totally agree with you, I think you'd be best to make a tactical advance to the rear. It will reduce your stress levels. Otherwise, this will be you outside battalion headquarters by the end of the week. Check, slide! ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this now... thats priceless. On another note I ended up writing to the Commonwealth copyright people by email and have now obtained express written permission to use the image on Wikipedia. On the advice of one of the volunteers at Commons it has now been uploaded there with a OTRS ticket. Anotherclown (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

45th Battalion

Hi, mate, I'm in the process of expanding the article on the 45th Battalion (Australia). If you have managed to avoid the expected "extras" from your demi, and are free tonight, I was hoping that you might be able to look up a couple of things in your library. I'm thinking that Kuring (2004) Redcoats to Cams and Palazzo (2001) The Australian Army: A History of its Organisation 1901–2001 might mention the battalion during the inter war years. I specifically need some information upon: (1) geographic location post 1921; (2) superior command structure, e.g. bde, div, etc. (3) whether or not the battalion was amalgamated following the end of compulsory service in 1929/30, (4) periods of continuous service at the start of World War II and (5) whether or not they were re-raised post World War II. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, mate, I've managed to find most of that information in other sources, but it would be good to confirm with citations from Kuring and Palazzo if possible. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Howdy, its a bit hectic at the moment but screw it I got beer so its all good. Ok heres what I got:
-45 Bn part of 12th Bde, 4th Division of 1st AIF (Kuring 2004, p. 91.) also (Palazzo 2001, p. 68.);
-45 (Gippsland) Infantry part of 3rd Military District as part of the Citizen Forces in 1918 (looks like 12th Brigade but its a little indistinct) (Kuring 2004, p. 41.);
-45th Bn part of 2nd Military District (NSW) in 1924 (this included the 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th Infantry Bdes but source doesn't say which it belonged to) (Kuring 2004, p. 109);
-45 Battalion part of 9th Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division in 1928 (with 1st, 19th, and 34th Battalions also part of the Bde) (Palazzo 2001, p. 102);
-45th Battalion (The St George Regiment) part of 2nd Military District in 1934 (again this includes 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th Bdes but Kuring doesn't specify which the Bn was part of) (Kuring 2004, p. 111.);
-45th Battalion (The St George Regiment) still part of 2nd Military District in 1939 (Kuring 2004, p. 113.);
-45th Battalion part of 2nd Division (which included 5th, 7th, 8th Infantry Brigades) when CMF reformed in 1947 (Palazzo 2001, p. 209.);
-45th Infantry Battalion (Machine Gun)(The St George Regiment) part of Eastern Command (New South Wales) in 1950 (Kuring 2004, p. 227.);
-45th Infantry Battalion (Machine Gun)(The St George Regiment) still part of Eastern Command (NSW) in August 1959 (Kuring 2004, p. 297.);
-Support Company, 3RNSWR was known as The St George Company during Pentropic (1960-64) (I assume lineage but its not specified) (Kuring 2004, p. 299);
-According to Palazzo 45th Battalion one of the source bns for 3RNSWR during pentropic (specifically stated), with A Coy and Support Coy both being called "The St George Coy" (Palazzo 2001, p. 259).;
I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's excellent, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Mughar Ridge ACR

Hi, mate, the Battle of Mughar Ridge ACR wil be due to be listed for closing in 5 days (28 day rule). When you get a chance, would you mind checking it out again and stating whether you support its promotion or not? This will help the closing co-ord when they come to make a decision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, actually you poked me out of my laziness so I have read the article again from top to bottom and left some more comments. Will check back in a day or two and finalise my vote though. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Anotherclown. Your suggestion of moving the Ayun Kara section from Aftermath to Battle at 21:43 on 4 February surprised me as its such a major change and so late in the review process. You misunderstood me as I didn't suggest at any time that it was more important than the Mughar Ridge battle - far from it. My reason for putting it in Aftermath signalled that it occurred subsequent to the pivotal action in this series of battles and was therefore of less importance. Regarding the citations in the intro it was my understanding that there was no clear cut right or wrong here. Thanks for your suggestion regarding splitting the prelude into background and prelude - I'll see what can be done. Again this is a major change and I'm sorry it wasn't suggested earlier in the process. But it does seem harsh to have opposed the article at 08:31 on 7 February on the basis of these last minute suggestions. However as you were the only reviewer, I appreciate that it would place a lot of pressure on you. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chongju

Hi mate, in case you missed it, I've completed my review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Clowns

Speaking of clowns, looks like I provided you with some clownish advice. [1]. Sorry. Naturally I've administered an upper cut already. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Actually after you said it to me I used the MS Word spell checker (on AS eng) and it didn't like 'understrength' either. It came up in the GA review for Battle of Chongju (1950) and I ping'd Ian on it. He explained that as an adjective its correct (and in wiktionary). Microsoft was wrong too so I wouldn't worry! Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

1st Provisional Marine Brigade ACR

Hi, the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade ACR is due to be closed as the 28 day period has passed. I'm not sure if your comments have been addressed or not, so would you mind quickly taking a look again and stating on the review page whether or not you support or oppose its promotion to A-class? This would be a big help to me as the closing co-ord in determining whether it should be closed as successful or unsuccessful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Roses come for you

The Wars of the Roses Barnstar
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the Battle of Towton. They have really helped to improve the article and be recognised as a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

a request

I hope you will read and followup to, the reply I left to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khalid_al-'Unaizi.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello from Russia! Thank you for the great article I've just translated. Thank you. HarDNox (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gallipoli

Why are links to Australian veterans discussing the war acceptable, but a British/French/ANZAC/Australian veterans/research website not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply they aren't either. To be honest I'm not really sure what you are referring to here though. Yes I removed a large number of external links from this article, including your addition, however the only links I left were a link to the Australian official histories (a fairly important series on this topic that is not really used), an article by Les Carlyon (an established historian) discussing the significance of Anzac, and a link to the original news reports from The Times (I certainly didn't keep a link to an article about "Australian veterans discussing the war"). As I explained in my edit summary, according to WP:ELNO "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should not be included. Further "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum" and "a lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links". I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Roulettes

Why is flickr not a reliable source? What I am actually doing is backing up what I've been told first hand from someone who works with the Roulettes and knows what is happening. Unfortunately nobody would call that verifiable so hence I'm finding images to support my information. But when you keep editing it and returning it back to what I wrote which is incorrect, it's not helping. I can get more images from other image sites and I'm sure you could check the EXIF info on the images linked which should help verify that they were taken over the weekend. Why do you need to make it so difficult? Malcol13 (talk)Malcol13Malcol13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry you feel I'm making it difficult, but ultimately an image is open to interpretation nd FlickR, like Wikipedia, is just a user contributed website and is therefore not a reliable source. IMO my alterations have only been to remove unsourced information. If you can find a source the meets the standards required of WP:RS then please feel free to add it. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should just delete the information about all six being back in the air completely since it is also not factual evidence that has been released or published that meets the standards. No point having "incorrect" information on there when you won't accept my further information. Malcol13 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix bunching and old browsers

It would be great if you could help track down and fix this issue. See here, where I have started a thread to discuss it. If possible, it would be better to fix this within MediaWiki:common.css, or within the campaignbox template, rather than adding fixbunching everywhere. I was unable to reproduce any issues using this webpage, but it could be a bug in that website. Thank you for your help. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Honestly I do not know enough about wiki markup to add anything intelligent to the conversation. All I can say is that when you make these changes it either causes a large amount of white space or all of the campaignboxs to bunch together to the left of the infobox. That said I do not think I am the only user to report this issue as I have seen a couple of others revert these changes (for what I imagine are similar reasons). What is the issue with using the 'fixbunching' tag anyway? I guess I am of the opinion that if it isn't broken don't fix it, but I'm guessing there must be more to it that that. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
What browser are you using? Frietjes (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
IE8 Beta 2 (2008 I believe). Anotherclown (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you look at User:Frietjes/bunching1, User:Frietjes/bunching2, User:Frietjes/bunching3, and User:Frietjes/bunching4? In my browser, the last one is the worst, adding extra spacing at the top and on the left of the infoboxes. However, the issue is not as severe as what you are describing. In all cases, the boxes float together on the right. The {{Fix bunching}} template was created to fix bunching of the [edit] links, which was caused by the edit links not properly floating to the right, and being pushed down by the infoboxes. This issue was fixed by recent changes to MediaWiki:common.css. What you seem to be describing is an issue with objects not floating together, which is not supposed to be a problem with any new browsers, so long as one uses "float: right; clear: right;" in the CSS or style statement. The "clear: right", makes the boxes float all the way to the right, rather than to the left of the previous box. These sort of stacking issues are supposed to be handled by the {{stack}} templates. I don't have IE, so I do my testing using this webpage, which shows issues with very old browsers (e.g., IE 5.5), but no problems with newer browsers (e.g., IE 8). If that browser testing site shows the same thing that you are seeing, then I can debug this without downloading and installing IE and Windows. Once this is resolved, I am planning to write up a guide about dealing with stacking, floating, and bunching issues, and hopefully include a gallery of screenshots from a variety of browsers. It would be good to resolve this first. Some older browsers do very strange things with the nested table approach used by {{fix bunching}}, adding spurious borders, excessive spacing, etc.. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This is interesting. For me 1, 2 and 3 look the same (as far as I can tell): essentially the infobox on the right, with the campaign box to its left with the lead text wrapped around it (no white space, but not stacked). Number 4 has the campaign box neatly stacked underneath the infobox on the right. Which seems to be the opposite for how you are seeing it. Is it possible this is to do with my user settings and not the browser at all? Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I followed this discussion from Frietjes talk page. If you are seeing the campaign box float to the left of the infobox, then something is going wrong with the "clear: right" directive. I am wondering if you also see this with two infoboxes stacked on top of each other, or if it is just with the campaign boxes. The bug could be with your browser taking the style from the "navbox" class which is used by the campaign box, and could be fixed by changing it to use the "infobox" class instead. However, before making such changes, we should check to see if this actually fixes it. I will try to create an example for you to test in a bit. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, it could just be a problem with Template:Campaign? Do the top two boxes on Revolution (song) stack one on top of the other, or is the second one floating to the left? If they are stacked on top of each other, then we should be able to fix the issue by making changes to Template:Campaign to use Template:Infobox rather than Template:Military navigation which uses Template:Navbox. For example, how do the boxes stack in User:Frietjes/bunching5? Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. Re: Revolution (song) I see the two infoboxs side-by-side on the right (so yes the second one is floating on the left). Re: User:Frietjes/bunching5 they also appear side-by-side to me. Not sure if this really answers your question. Sorry. Anotherclown (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bugging you, but are the images in Château de Creully aligned side-by-side or vertical (with one on top of the next)? And in Churchill Crocodile, are the images below the infobox, or floating to the left of the infobox? If the image alignment is correct, then we should be able to fix things by replicating the code used by the images. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

KAL1 GPIR

I note that you have reverted the edits that were made yesterday for the subject entry. I have copies of all of the original documents relating to the matters described in that web page. Please advise me as to what you feel would be the proper course of action. It would also be possible to provide the names of persons and their contact numbers for you to speak to if you wish to research this further to satisfy your own personal interest in military history. Techforuscom (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Techforuscom. Essentially wikipolicy requires all information to be verifible with references to reliable sources. In addition our notability guidelines require a subject to have received "significant independent coverage" before it is included in the encyclopaedia. As such unless you can provide references to secondary sources which support the additions they really ought not to be included. Original documents are not in themselves enough, per WP:PRIMARY. I hope this makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The article you presently have posted is not perfectly accurate in that: 1. Andrew Witt was a National Serviceman serving out his last year at 3 Base Workshop. He was not a designer but a Craftsman assigned by the ASM GE Company, WO1 Woods, to assist Lt Kevin Loughrey. 2. The rifle came about largely as a result of the support of the Scientific Advisor, Mr Nesbitt as well as Mr Eric Duve and Mr Peter O'Dwyer of the Department of Supply. Staff Cadet Kevin Loughrey's superior officers were mixed in their support. For example, Capt John Scully, the OC of the Duntroon Workshops, actually wrote a minute suggesting that Loughrey could better spend his time on other things. 3. The Army did not at that time overtly declare the L1A1 to be an unsatisfactory weapon, as evidenced by the fact it remained in service until the late 1980's, some 15 years after Loughrey's work. An Ex-Commanding Officer of Loughrey's, Colonel C.M. Townsend, when Commandant of the Infantry Centre, did put pen to paper in 1975 stating that the L1A1 was unsatisfactory and suggesting alternatives.

I now understand your problem with the matter of verifiable second sources and am sympathetic. I will look into what can be done to remedy that deficiency in order to comply rigidly with the requirements of Wikipedia. I have seen this material and will arrange for it to be put up on the Non Volatile Technologies Site.

Sources of information are Mr David Mason-Jones, journalist, who was Loughrey's Second Class at RMC, www.journalist.com.au. Mr John Longworth, Small Arms Replacement Project Officer for the L1A1 and close friend of Mason-Jones. Mr Rick Davies, later Aviation Corps, the person who made the introduction to the Scientific Advisor possible. Mr Warwick Elliot, presently in DMO, classmate and close friend of Loughrey. Mr Graham Smith, Deputy Director of the Directorate of Technical Regulation Army, classmate and close friend, Maj Gen Jim Molan, Lt Gen David Hurley, friends of Loughrey and persons who were at RMC at that time.

No need to reply. Consider this matter closed. Techforuscom (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Wong Sue

Hi, Please note that I have deleted some of your posts from this article's talk page. This was done only to ensure that no part of this discussion was visible - your posts were not troublesome. Nick-D (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the note Nick. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

1st Brigade

Hi, if you get a chance could you please take a look at Kuring or Palazzo and see if they mention 1st Brigade during Pentropic (1960 to 1965)? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, already had a quick look but there doesn't appear to be anything. I'll go through them more thoroughly later today. I'll also check some of my other refs. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, ok I was unable to find anything explicit, although here's what I have:
  • From Kuring, Redcoats to Cams, p. 262: "The Pentropic division was radical in that it had no brigade structures, and was built around five large infantry battalions, each with a strength of 1304 men, compared to the tropical warfare battalon's strength of 774 men."
  • From McNeill, To Long Tan, p. 14: "The pentropic division was designed to be divisible into five 'battle groups' instead of three brigades. Each battle group was formed by grouping a pentropic battalion with its combat support units from the division (artillery, engineers, and armour) and logistic units (transport and supply)." and "Should protracted operations in an independent role be required, a task force headquarters was available to command between one and three battle groups, together with their logistic support." and "Pentropic battalon commanders were given the rank of colonel, whereas a conventional battalion was commanded by a lieutenant colonel."
To me this indicates that while brigades were no longer part of the command structure of the division their HQs must have continued to exist (in the guise of Task Forces) in order to provide the independent formation level commands mentioned by McNeill. Further on in McNeill I have found evidence that the 1st Task Force (not to be confused with 1ATF of later Vietnam War fame at this stage) continued to exist during the pentropic experiment, before it was done away with in favour of returning to the brigade model. For instance:
  • From McNeill, To Long Tan, p. 19: "The major field force exercise in 1963, named Sky High, was the first of its kind in counter-insurgency. Lasting eighteen days in November, it was held in the mountainous and densely timbered forest of the Mount Gospers area near Singleton, New South Wales. There were 8000 troops involved, including 1000 'enemy'. The formation being exercised was the 1st Task Force, which comprised the 1RAR Battle Group, and a battlaion of the Royal Ulster Rifles (RUR) which had flown out especially from England."
  • From McNeill, To Long Tan, p. 22: "On 28 October 1964 Wilton initiated a major review of the pentropic organisation... Within a month, the report that Wilton had commissioned recommended a reversion to the triangular organisation of three brigades, now known as task forces, with nine battalions in the division."
Sorry I couldn't find anything specific but I think this should give you something to work from at least. From reading McNeill's footnotes I have found a promising history of this era: J.C. Blaxland (1989) "Organising an Army: The Australian Experience 1957-1965" which I have now ordered (it was sort of cheap and I was interested anyway) but I imagine it might take a week or two to arrive. Maybe I might be able to get more info for you out of this. Anyway let me know what you think of the infomation above at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A few years ago I did some in-depth research into the pentropic structure for an article I was intending to publish on another website (but never got around to finishing). The 1st Brigade HQ was disbanded in 1960 as part of the adoption of the pentropic strucutre. The 'task force' headquarters was an element of the divisional HQ intended to command detached parts of the division (and, from memory, assume command of the division if the main HQ was destroyed - one of the principles underpinning the pentropic structure was a concern that the divisional organisation needed to be able to survive under nuclear bombardment) and so wasn't the 1st Brigade HQ under a new name. When pentropic was abandoned in 1965 the 1st Bde headquarters was re-raised as the headquarters of the '1st Task Force' - the change in name was done for PR reasons as the Army wasn't really keen for the general public to notice that it was returning to its previous organisation after the unsuccessful Pentropic organisation. The source for the disbandment of the bde is Blaxland, J.C. (1989). Organising an Army : The Australian Experience, 1957-1965. Canberra: Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, the Research School of Pacific Studies, the Australian National University. p. 64. ISBN 0731505301., the rationale for the move to the post-1965 'task force' name is on page 108. The paper is excellent if you can find a copy. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Nick. Yep found a copy and its on its way! Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, gents, I've expanded the article a bit, but from Nick's information it looks like I've got some of it wrong (i.e. everything from 1960 to 1965). I wonder if I should just delete that. What do you both think? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes probably, I think Nick's got it right here. You might like to include some of the above info as an explaination though as it makes fairly interesting reading IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked it now. It might need a little bit more detail, but I'm a bit short of time tonight. Thanks, both of you, for your help. Feel free to tweak the article if you notice anything else. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

47th Battalion

Hi there. I grew up in Maryborough,Qld but have lived in "central" Australia for many years now. Maryborough was the HQ of the 47th. That is not mentioned in the Wiki article, although it is prominent in the AWM reference which is given. "Central" Queensland seems a little north to me. Unfortunately, south east Qld has become to mean only that area within spitting distance of Brisbane - although I would think of Maryborough being geographically located in south east Queensland and not in central Queensland. The second incarnation of the 47th drew its members from the Wide Bay-Burnett Region, which is south of Rockhampton which many think of as the Capital of Central Queensland. I feel south east would give a foreigner a better idea of where to look for Maryborough, as central might have them looking west to Anakie and Jericho! I'm sorry I didn't supply my rationale for the change in the first instance. I hit the "publish" button way too soon. I might have been carried away remembering my days in the Air Training Corps. On Friday nights we used to do square bashing on the gravel parade ground at the 47th HQ. Cheers, Greg Winterflood (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Too easy. Obviously I disagree but I'm not going to make an issue of it. As I didn't write the article I wouldn't know, but I wonder what the sources say? User: AustralianRupert might be able to shed some light on it. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, gents, the source doesn't specify central or south east, it just provides the individual locations, so there's no dramas in that regard. To be honest, I've always thought of those locations as being central Queensland, but that's probably because I come from Brisbane and maybe I'm wrong. Its not really a big deal for me, though, and I'm happy to leave as is. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello both. I'm new at this but can see a Retirement hobby in the making. I think one needs to think TI [Torres Strait], FNQ [Cairns], NQ [Townsville], CQ [Rocky], SEQ [Bundaberg south],CH [Central Highlands, west of Rocky], WQ [areas West of the Dividing Range, but not too far out] and then FWQ [Everything beyond the Black Stump, including Thargomindah, where my paternal Grandmother was born.] Cheers, Greg Winterflood (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks AR and Greg. Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Bribie

The article Operation Bribie you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Bribie for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix bunching (redux)

I saw that you have been editing War in North-West Pakistan, but yet you have not added the "fix bunching" template. Can I infer from this that you are no longer having the same problems that you have described before? If the problem is not fixed for you, I am still interested in figuring out why you are having troubles with infoboxes in proximity of one another. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Actually I'm just using a much newer computer at the moment thats all. I'll have a look at it on my old computer and tell you what it looks like. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so it sounds like it is just a problem with your old computer? I do think there are some instances when even on a new computer, we need a method to stack the boxes together, and I have made a proposal here, which would even work on your old computer (since it replicates the fix bunching code, but in a way that hides most of it from the editor). Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok I have had a look this page using my old computer/old brower but it still looks bad to me. All the boxes are side by side as per my previous comments. Anotherclown (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
So far you are the only one to report this problem. It sounds like an issue with your old computer, and probably not something which can be resolved. If I recall, you don't have the same problem with images? Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Gday Frietjes. I had a look at the new fix you seem to be using for this on my old computer/brower combination (where you embed the Campaignbox in the Infobox). It seems to fix all of the problems I have previously discussed with you. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

67th Battalion (Australia)

Do you know if the 3RAR takes on the lineage of the previous 67th Battalions in their various forms? I have the following; 67th Infantry formed after 1911 reorganisation of the Army, then renamed 67th. (Bendigo) Infantry Regimetnt. In 1912 the 8th Australian Imperial Regiment was merged into the 67th Infantry. 67th Infantry Battalion (AIF) formed on 25 April 1917 as part of the 17th Brigade, 6th Division and disbanded on 16 September 1917. 67th Battalion (BCOF) formed on 20 October 1945 until redesignated as 3RAR in November 1948. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gday. I don't have a definitive answer to this I'm afraid, although I believe it very likely that it would not. AFAIK none of the battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment take the lineage of previous units. 3RAR would of course take the lineage of the 67th Battalion which was formed in 1945 but I don't believe it would share that of the earlier 67th Battalions. That said I don't have much in the way of sources to confirm this. I base this mainly on the fact that the 67th Battalion as raised in 1945 was part of the 2nd AIF (despite not having the prefix "2nd") and I believe that there was a concious decision made by the army that 2nd AIF units would not perpetuate the earlier battalions of the Militia or the 1st AIF. Likewise no RAR battalions perpetuate any earlier battle honours, other than those awarded to the RAR itself. According to Horner (1990) Duty First p. 466 the 65th, 66th and 67th Battalions which were raised in 1945: "While initially they were AIF units, with the disbandment of the AIF they later became part of the Interim Army, and finally, on 14 August 1952, Australian Regular Army (ARA) units." From page 53-54 "The three battalions in Japan were designated the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the The Australian Regiment (AR) with application made for a royal title. This redesignation was approved by the Minister and took effect on 23 November 1948. The title 'Royal' was granted by His Majesty King George VI and was announced on 10 March 1949. The Royal Australian Regiment (RAR) thus came into being as Australia's first regular regiment of infantry. Regimental colours were subsequently presented to the battalions and in accordance with its new status the Regiment did not adopt any existing battle honours. The Regiment now had the task of establishing its own traditions and was very soon to win its own honours." Lastly User:AustralianRupert is fairly knowledgable on issues of lineage and he might be able to provide a more intelligent response. I hope this helps nonetheless. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I think that in the case of the 65th, 66th and 67th Battalions that were raised for the BCOF, they were meant to have separate identities from those battalions that were raised briefly during World War I, although I believe that the central colours on the Unit Colour Patches were meant to provide a link to those old identities (I can't remember where I read this, though, sorry). It may not have been what the thinking was at the time (in 1945), but I think it quickly became that way when the decision was made to rename the battalions as part of the Australian Regiment (later RAR) in 1948. Sorry if this sounds confusing (I'm also confused myself) and I think it is yet another example of the Army making life difficult for historians! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I am confused. How would one go about writing a article about 67th Battalion? Would it be around the lines ot the US Navy squadrons which are not succesive squadrons but new creations e.g. with headings 67th Battalion (1st AIF), 67th Battalion (BCOF), etc? Newm30 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the confusion. My suggestion would be to write articles titled "65th Battalion (Australia)", "66th Battalion (Australia)" and "67th Battalion (Australia)" (I think they are currently redirects) and focus them on the first incarnation (World War I - 1st AIF). The last paragraph in those articles could then mention that the numerical designations were used again in 1945-48, but that they were separate units. It might then be wise to include a footnote on the 1, 2 and 3 RAR articles mentioning that those designations had been previously used during World War I. Before doing this, though, it is probably best to get a couple of opinions, as I have been wrong in the past. Perhaps see what Anotherclown and Nick-D think about this suggestion also. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Gday. I agree with ARs suggestions here. Seems like a good way of dealing with the subjects to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, again, sorry to keep this one going. I found a ref for the point about the colours on the UCPs being the same as the 1917 battalions. Horner 2008, Duty First, 2nd edition, p. 10. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

British Army officer rank insignia

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 10:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't upload either of these images this seems a fairly inappropriate template to dump on my page. Please discuss here as I asked: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
read the note. it states or added to an article. ΔT The only constant 10:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to discuss or just attempt to bully people with templates? Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As above. Why was this placed here? This is not an attempt to discuss the issue IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no discussion needed. Overuse of non-free materials is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 10:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

First Battle of Maryang San

Hi, I've started the GA review. My comments are at: Talk:First Battle of Maryang San/GA1‎. Please take a look when you get a chance. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Brazilian_battleship_São_Paulo

Did I do a good job dealing with your concerns? - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Crimp

See Friendly fire, there is an IP editor changing dates on Operation Crimp. He has a history of mixing legitimate edits with wikifiddling so its difficult to know what is useful. You seem to have some domain knowledge, could you comment? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gday. I have responded on the talk page. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey another friendly fire thingy

Thanks for the help dude. I really appreciated standing up on Wee Curry. I found these two more incidents yet something tell it's not right. Here are two examples from a friendly fire article: 1)January 2, 1966: In Bao Trai in the Mekong Delta during joint Australian/American forces fighting the Vietcong, a USAF Cessna O-1 Bird Dog flying at low level accidentally flew through Australian and New Zealand artillery fire. The aircraft tail was blown off and the aircraft dived into the ground, killing the pilot instantly.

2)At midnight on January 3, 1966, near Bao Trai, Sergeant Jerry Morton from 'C' Company, the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment had called in marker white phosphorous rounds ahead of the company from the supporting New Zealand gun battery on a suspected enemy position. However, due to the bad coordinates given by Morton, the rounds instead landed on the Australian forces. Morton along with another Australian soldier were killed and several others wounded. I also found this link. Care to read it for a bit? http://www.historynet.com/operation-marauder-allied-offensive-in-the-mekong-delta.htm If anything wrong there, can you spare to make changes? Thanks! 67.164.105.159 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for the link but I would just like to clarify that I was not standing up to Wee Curry Monster or anyone for that matter. In fact that user asked me to have a look at the edits to ensure their accuracy. As I happened to have a number of books on this topic I was happy to be able to check the information and found that you were correct. I have no knowledge of any previous dispute between you two and am only interested in ensuring that the information in the article is correct. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your revision

You revised my revision, but i always thought that the commander in chief of the armed forces was our head of state, and the head of state isn't the queen. It's the governor-general. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is different to colonel-in-chief of a Corps of the Australian Army which is a ceremonial position. The current Queen is the colonel-in-chief of the RAInf; it is not a title held by a position holdier (e.g. "head of state"), but one held by an individual (e.g. Elizabeth II). I hope this makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Chinese PWs Battle of Kapyong 24 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chinese PWs Battle of Kapyong 24 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dashes need "fixing"?

Hi Anotherclown, I noticed you "fixed the dashes" in List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F). Is there a page somewhere that states that html code needs to be converted? Personally, I tend to prefer the raw form because then I know when I'm editing it whether it is a dash or a hyphen. (They both look the same in the edit window). I live with it when they are changed but I was wondering where the mandate is? Thanks, Woody (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Gday. Actually not sure about this one, as I haven't looked for the policy on this. I'm just using the Advisor script which says they do. More than happy if you change it back. However the hyphens that you used for some of the page and date ranges do need to be endashs per WP:DASH though. I hope that helps somewhat. Anotherclown (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I knew about the ranges, didn't realise I missed some but hey, I often do. Thanks for catching them. I can't find anything that says you have to, I did find Wikipedia:How to make dashes which states you don't have to and that there are two schools of thought on it so it is probably one of those awkward areas. In any case, enough hot air has been expended on dashes, no need for any more ;) Thanks for catching Roberts-Smith by the way, don't know how I overlooked it, I need to find where I got that intro from and update it! Thanks, Woody (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Too easy. From looking at WP:DASH again it would seem that both are acceptable also, so I would say you are right. Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I always take the MOS and particularly MOSDASH with a pinch of salt, what with it being fully protected and the subject of an active arbitration motion! ;) I have always found Wikipedia's obsession with dashes to be somewhat amusing so I don't mind either way. They are all uniform now and look good to the reader so that is all that matters. Thanks, Woody (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Wallace (soldier)

Please review some of your edits regarding citations.
The book was released in at least two editions, in at least two marketplaces, with at least two different titles. Throwing away accurate information to "clean up citations" seems to place "form" above "function" (and accuracy).
But, to emphasise that I'm NOT just a whinger: Otherwise, "good stuff"! Thanks!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Is there any particular reason why you removed all the "other" Operations from the infobox? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Re the operations: firstly Australian forces were not deployed to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (which is the American code name for their actions there). Operation Slipper is the Australian code-name and that is already listed in the infobox. In regards to Operation Trek (Solomon Islands), Operation Cedilla (Western Sahara) and Operation Gaberdine (Defence logistic support to DIMIA as part of WOGA to manage illegal boat arrivals) - these are completely uncited in the article and there is no evidence that he took part. Do you have references for this? If so by all means please add them back in, however I can find nothing in the cited work to support this claim (although it is likely true IMO). Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Re the citations: the short citation format I have used is encouraged per WP:CITESHORT. As the aim of citations in Wikipedia is referencing, and not to sell books, there is no need to include links to the author's biography or every slightly different variation of the title as it appears in different markets. Unless you used both versions as a reference merely using the one version per the citation template is more than adequate. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds sensible & logical to me. Thanks for the high quality response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gus Gilmore

I can't pin down when Gus Gilmore was actually awarded his DSC - only the fact that it wasn't awarded at the same time as Wallace's MG. It doesn't appear in "It's an Honour". Can you help? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find anything on this either. The award is mentioned in McPhedran's Amazing SAS p. 236 but no dates. This press release indicates that the award was announced on 27 Nov 2002 but that it was presented "at a later date" (here). Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh well. Thanks for looking. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'm starting to feel your pain here hey. How tiresome. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
a) <grin> b) <groan> — This guy seems to be very good at spreading the pain. (Do we have a barnstar for that?) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Nicely stated! (Much better than what I had in mind.) Thanks. (And "bon voyage", too). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

German involvement in the Spanish Civil War

Thank you for your edits. We're used to thankless tasks, well, this isn't one of them. If you 'do' barnstars:

The Minor Barnstar
For a series of small edits to German involvement in the Spanish Civil War, across the space of over 30 minutes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. It is a very interesting article about a topic I didn't know very much about. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

James B. McCreary

Thanks for your comments during the recent WP:MILHIST A-class review of James B. McCreary. If you are interested, I've now listed the article at WP:FAC. Your comments and suggestions for further improvement would again be welcome. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anotherclown/Archive_5&oldid=1144588182"