Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

The situation got too much for me - it seemed trollish behaviour and to say "I meant nothing by that it simply means a dead end" in an ANI when in fact he later says "maybe act like children in some aspects". On the Milhist page he clearly says "making an extra section to talk about blas posting in th middle is kinde kindergarden" which is obviously NOT about a dead end meant that I could not get involved lest my gaskets popped out of the window lol. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're missing a field, for DYKs, there is also dykentry=, so you don't have to delete the hook like you've done here. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ack, thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have added some ^{[citation needed]} tags to the article. I presume they ref at the end of the paragraphs cover them ? However its not clear and some of the statements need a ref beside them. That said the article looks in good shape.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, however personally I always add a new cite where the source changes, and to reference the same work three or four times in a single paragraph seems a little OTT. Anotherclown (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to have a read and make comments though. :-) Anotherclown (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the correct link ? Lakona --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No its not, damn. Looks like there isn't a link for this yet. Well done and thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you contested the PROD on 2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash, I have sent it to AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Anotherclown,

First off thanks for the support on A Class review of this article. I also noticed that you have further consolidated and cleaned up the references and citations. I appreciate that. Based on the current state of this article, do you think its in any shape for nominating to be a FAC ?

Kindly let me know. TIA '  Perseus 71 ^talk 12:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, sorry about the late reply as I have been travelling the last few days. No worries, glad to help where I can. Personally I think this article is excellent and I would encourage you to have a shot at FAC. I'm not an expert at that level (never done one myself) but on the surface I think that it shouldn't face any issues with passing. By and large about 70 to 80% of articles that pass a MILHIST ACR make the grade at FAC. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw this edit. Welcome back! Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Nick - obviously I managed to do a bit of wiki whilst I was away anyway (and stir up a hornets nest or two)! The trip proved to be a bit shorter than originally planned also (and now I'm off on course for 4 months)... Anotherclown (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started the GAR here: Talk:1st Armoured Regiment (Australia)/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few adjustments and some additions on the basis of your comments. Will see what I can do about the rest shortly. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Sturmvogel. I think I have responded to your comments as best as I can and have added a bit more. Specific answers to your concerns have been left on the GA talk page. Can you please have another look and let me know if anything further needs to be done (when possible)? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, can you please check for the abbreviations in Battle of Kindau? There are a couple that possibly need to be clarified. H BTP, J BTP and BTP 2. They're battalion combat groups, right? But I don't think you've made this clear. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point... I'll add a note. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance, can you please take a look at 2/3rd Battalion (Australia)? I've added in all the missing citations and removed the citations to the battalion newsletter. It might need a copy edit, otherwise I'd be fairly confident it meets B class standards. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, looks good so far. Unfortunatly I have only gone through the first 1/4 of the article and now I need to go... Happy to have another look when I get back from holiday though. Anotherclown (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No dramas. Have a good trip. I imagine it would not be a popular decision for you to be sitting on wiki while the beach is just outside the window and the wife is wanting to spend some time with you. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, not even taking the laptop... it would probably be worth my life... Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied. Thanks for reviewing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied again. Afraid to say this tool isn't happening for me YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert told me how to install it. I've fixed it YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I've finalised my support for the review now. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't familiar with your work, I would have reverted your edit with the edit comment: "Why?"
Instead, I haven't/won't revert it. But I'll still ask: "Why?" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO neither of those links are appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Anotherclown (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That was a quick reply! Thanks!!

Sorry, I don't understand.

First, you have removed three links (not two).

Second, which aspect of "links to be avoided" are you referring to?

i.e. Could you be a bit more specific please?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply they fail criteria one, as they add nothing to the inline citations that are already used in the article itself. Why is this an issue? Anotherclown (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Why is this an issue?" - In and of itself, I'm not sure that it is an issue.

From your POV, it has become an issue because your (lack of) explanation provided no useful information from which I could determine whether (or not) it was (or wasn't) an issue. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously don't tell me what my point of view is... you're making it an issue by demanding an explaination. Revert if you feel you must (and feel free to cite a reason for the inclusion of these links at the same time). Anotherclown (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I see you took your "grumpy pill" this morning!!

Seriously or otherwise, I'm NOT telling you what your POV is. Lighten up and WP:AGF.

"you're making it an issue by demanding an explaination." - I'm not DEMANDING anything. I said: I have no idea what you're talking about, please explain. YOU are the one who has decided that it's "an issue".

Pdfpdf (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In case it's not obvious to you, I won't be participating further in this ... "interchange".

Suits me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, gents, I think the issue here is a simple misunderstanding. Anotherclown has removed some external links that he believes do not add anything to the article and Pdfpdf has questioned this in order to clarify why it was done. I support both these COAs as I agree with AC's removal (I think we need to be careful on Wikipedia not to turn ourselves into "linkypedia"), but I also support Pdfpdf asking for a "please explain". If one doesn't know why an edit has been done, it is always best to ask. Additionally, if someone's explanation is not clear it is fair enough to ask them to clarify again. In order for these misunderstandings not to occur though it is probably best to remember that when adding comments on Wikipedia it is not always possible for the other person to exactly know the intentions of the speaker (i.e. you can't see their body language, facial expressions, etc.). As such we need to be very careful with the words we choose so that they are not misinterpreted as being "pointy" when they aren't really intended to be. You are both editors in good standing, so I'm sure that you both had the best of intentions when the conversation began. As such if there is some way that this issue can be clarified and both parties satisfied I'm happy to help out if you so wish. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I've noticed a few edits you've made to standardise the section headings on battle articles (to background/prelude/battle etc), citing WP:MILMOS. I went to look there to see what the conventions are (I keep forgetting what to use, and end up inventing them from scratch each time), and it doesn't mention anything about standard headers. Is this on another page somewhere, or has it just got lost over time? Shimgray | talk | 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for talkpage stalking, I think the page you are looking for is this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide (it was split off recently, hence why MILMOS doesn't provide the exact info anymore). The new shortcut is "WP:MILMOS/C". Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Rupert, I wasn't aware it had been moved. But yes that is what I was referring to. Anotherclown (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate. The Advisor script reports an error with the ISBN for the MacGarrigle work. If/when you get a chance, can you confirm from the hardcopy? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, fixed now... I wasn't even close! Anotherclown (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit also. I proof read that thing repeatedly before I uploaded it and still there were typos... Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. BTW, I can't find the Ham 2007 source in the References. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Ben and I drink... added now. Good pick up. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Going to hit the sack now... take it easy and thanks again. Hoping to add a map and some pics to the article tommorrow if I get time. Anotherclown (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll probably not get much online time for the rest of the week, unfortunately as I've got a bit of course work this week. You should consider putting this one up for a DYK if you get a chance. BTW, I've got all the refs to click through with the CITEREF tags except the Van Thai one. For some reason the mark up code doesn't want to work. Anyway, take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate. When you get a chance, could you please take a look over Battle of North Borneo? It probably needs fresh eyes to pick up typos, etc. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for taking a look. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I have been meaning to some thing about that article and Oboe Six for a while given the issues you highlighted. Don't need to now though. :-) Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for picking it up. I've replied YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, your nomination of Battle of Suoi Chau Pha at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:3CAV M113 in the mud Operation Ballarat August 1967 (AWM EKT670025VN).png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bit quick on the trigger finger... I was adding the info as you tagged it causing an edit conflict. Its there now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word Malay at Second Sumatran expedition :| SatuSuro 13:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, yes I saw your post on the talk page when I assessed it. Unfortunately my knowledge of such matters is not sufficient for me to help resolve the matter I'm afraid. This issue is one of the reasons why I assessed the article as not meeting the coverage and accuracy B-class criteria however. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ok Ill get around to moving the terminology (the malays are on the other side of the strait for a start) - a small group of pirating sumatrans from south sumatra in the early 1800's sounds like the source being used wouldnt know any of the ethnic divisions in the whole region and would label them they all look the same - a common early nineteenth century ethnocentric european element of arrogance :{ SatuSuro 13:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you may be right. I think if you do go ahead and re-write it though you should try to maintain the 'voice' of the original source (i.e. that they (wrongly) identified them as Malays) etc. Anotherclown (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

good advice - maybe a footnote would be more accurate with a link with Piracy_in_the_Strait_of_Malacca - :) - like the second expedition article seems to be totally disassociated from the main article :( SatuSuro 13:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

and although unsourced - the potential innacuracies of the US sailoris is even more intriguing against -

Increased commercial traffic through the strait and the poor economic conditions of the local populations drove many people to piracy. Piracy was also sometimes used as a form of political resistance to colonialism. Pirate crews often came from the Lanun people, a people native to the coastal villages in the region. Chinese pirates, outcasts of Qing dynasty China, could also be found to prey on unsuspecting trading ships. so it goes SatuSuro 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered running for coord this time around? I'm sure voters would really appreciate all your work at A-class reviews. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I just noticed you're Aussie, so it's unlikely you'll see this before the deadline. Sorry, that was unintentional, it just occurred to me this morning that invitations should be extended to the people who have been instrumental in the A-class reviews. I should have thought of this sooner! - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, damn the deadline ... if you want to run, I'll throw my support behind extending the deadline. I feel bad I didn't think of you before now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate. Thanks very much for the encouragement but I will have to decline I'm afraid. I know its an important job but I am quite busy in real life at the moment. A bit of a cop out I know... Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, maybe next time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, not sure if you've got any free time but if you do would you taking a look at 13th Battalion (Australia). I've done some clean up work on it as it seemed a bit close to the original source (the AWM unit information), but my eyes are a bit tired. Also, would you mind having a look through your vast library (e.g. the First World War official histories) and seeing if the small bit about Pozieres could be expanded slightly? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, yeah I'll have a look and see what I can add. From my initial research though the 13th Battalion also served during the inter-war period, the Second World War and in the post war period as well (it definately existed in the CMF in 1959 according to Kuring). At the moment the article gives the impression that it was only on the ORBAT during the First World War, you might like to add a bit on this if possible. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't found anything on the AWM for Second World War, so it was probably garrison duty in Australia. That being the case, it will be hard to write much, but it might be possible to cobble something together with a few citations from Kuring, and maybe McCarthy, or Palazzo. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, heres what I know so far:

• 13th Battalion existed in 1924 (ref Kuring p. 109)
• 13th Battalion (The Maitland Regiment) existed in 1934 (ref Kuring p. 111)
• 13th Battalion was part of 1st Brigade in 1928 (ref Palazzo p. 102)
• 13th Battalion (The Maitland Regiment) was part of 1st Brigade, 1st Division in 1939 (ref [1] and Kuring p. 296)
• 13th Battalion (The Macquarie Regiment) was a CMF unit in August 1959 (ref Kuring p. 297)
• 13th Battalion (The Macquarie Regiment) formed part of 2 RNSWR during the Pentropic reorganisation in 1960 (became D Coy: The Macquarie Coy) (ref Palazzo p. 259)
• Following the abandonment of the Pentropic organisation in 1965 it appears the battalion was not reformed (wire diagram of Army organisation in 1965 doesn't list the battalion, ref Palazzo p. 276–277)

What do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good info, thanks. I should be able to work that into something. Pity it doesn't confirm anything about WWII, though. I suspect that the 13th were like many Militia units and served in a garrison role in Australia (and were probably disbanded sometime between 1943 and 1945). I'd also assume they were re-raised in 1948, but that would only be a guess unfortunately, so I can't include it. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1st Division never left Australia during WW2. Will see if I can find anything else (maybe a book in the Defence library... who knows). Anotherclown (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

According to orders of battle.com, the 13th was amalgamated with the 33rd on 31 October 1942. That, at least, solves that part of the mystery. [2] AustralianRupert (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a few more sections using the information provided. Would you mind taking a read over it and giving it a bit of a copy edit? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, well done (although as you know I have been drinking) haha... time for tequila! Can't believe I just wikilinked that... Anotherclown (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I wonder if there is a userbox for "Wikipedians who edit while drinking". :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping a line to let you know I just created a stub for Battle of Nui Le, as today is its 39th anniversary. I dont have alot of references for this battle, however I will try to expand further with what reference I have. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate. Good work - hadn't actually even heard of it until now. I actually have a few references that could be used to make it into a fairly decent article and may get around to it one day... unless of course if you do! Unfortuately I am very busy at the moment with work. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate. I had a go at expanding 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. Might need some more work, though, and unfortunately I haven't been able to find citations for some of the information already there. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, ok I've added a little bit (with some refs), otherwise it looks like a fine article to me. The only thing left is a ref for the current structure (which I doubt we're ever going to be able to track down). Thoughts on reassessment? Seems fairly close to a B to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and refs. I've listed it for re-assessment, but I think the citation needed tag will hold it back from a B. I can live with that, though, because at least it is now a decent article and readers can get something from it. Will probably try to work on 5 RAR next if I get some time (which is not likely for the next two months). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the HMS Liverpool review, I looked up the present conditional tense in the sense I was using it in Chicago ... and it's not there. I'm scratching my head. I've asked for feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Would. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You have grand plans?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. No not at this stage I'm afraid - would like to take it further but really busy with work. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This would probably be a difficult article to develop to A or FA status - as Australia's role in the war was simultaneously limited and complex, it would be difficult to decide what to include and exclude. This seems to be the main reason why the Australian War Memorial's official history of the Australian Army in the war is now something like a decade beyond the date it was meant to be completed! Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I've been looking forward to reading the last volume for years! Apparently it is finally at the publisher and should be published next year. Anotherclown (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it as well - the first two volumes were excellent (particularly To Long Tan). Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they were, and surprisingly easy to read for such works. In fairness though the death of poor Ian McNeill set them back considerably aswell by the sounds of things. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have twisted nickers, but I am a little bit puzzled as to why you classified this information as "redundant". To me, redundant implies duplication, and I don't see any duplication. What does "redundant" mean to you? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pdfpdf. Basically I felt it was unnecessary as the information essentially says 'see x website' for the organisation's vision, mission, objectives, strategies and guiding principles, rather than actually saying what they were in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article says (said?) that. I couldn't see the point of copying stuff from the website onto wikipedia.

• Do you think the stuff should be copied into the article?

If so, that's easily done.

If not, well, I don't understand your point.

And I really don't enjoy making a fool of myself in public, but I still don't understand why that is "redundant".

And while I'm making a fool of myself, I don't understand the "unnecessary", either.

Obviously, it must be bed-time. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this information would be relevant if included in the article (rather than saying a reader should go to the website to find it, which is essentially non-information and hence IMO it is unneccessary and unencyclopaedic). For instance one wouldn't find a similar sentence in a printed reference of any note, and I think that that is the standard at which we should be aiming to achieve on wikipedia. Anotherclown (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I now understand what you did and why you did it.

So it's neither unnecessary nor redundant - your point is that it would be better to have the information itself there, than to have a link to it.

Hmmm. Maybe.

I have to admit that I don't see the point of copying a slab of text from a web page into a wikipedia page just because the copyright on the page says you are allowed to.

If the target page was copyright, it would be a copyvio to do so, and the ONLY way to do it would be via a link to the target page.

which is essentially non-information and hence IMO it is unneccessary and unencyclopaedic - Well, I have a different opinion. And I completely disagee that it is "non-information"! The logical extension of that statement is that ALL references are "non-information". It seems unlikely to me that you would be saying that. I think I must be mis-understanding you.

For instance one wouldn't find a similar sentence in a printed reference of any note - I disagree. Footnotes, endnotes and cross-references are very common and can be found in a very large number of publications.

As I said, I think I must be mis-understanding you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you think the information should be there rather than a link to it, why didn't you put it there? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A footnote saying 'see X website for this information' would clearly be different (as that wasn't what we were talking about originally was it). IMO it would also be acceptable in this case to include in this fashion if you wish (and of course footnotes and endnotes are used in printed sources, which wasn't what I was arguing at all). Quit obviously it would only be copyright violation if it was copied (i.e. not re-written or summarised which I imagine it could easily be), which again clearly was not what I was advocating. The same rule clearly applies to ANYTHING that an editor wants to include in ANY article on wikipedia.

If you want to include the information feel free to do so as I personnally am not interested enough in the topic to invest the time to do so. Regardless including it in the article with out actually saying what the organisation's "vision, mission, objectives, strategies and guiding principles" ACUTALLY IS seems a fairly clear case of non-infomation to me (i.e. it tells the reader NOTHING) and is therefore unnecessary. I am clearly NOT saying that references are unnecessary and the infomation can be added, with an inline citation, and that would be fine IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? If it was "clear", why would I be asking?

Perhaps you'd like to read what I wrote and answer at least one of the questions I asked you? I'm afraid I got no useful answers from your reply, and nothing useful that I didn't think was already obvious.

I think there is the gem of something in there, but I can't work out what it is. Do you think you could restate your reply without the emotion and hyperbole, and just state the basic facts that you are trying to communicate? If so, I would be most appreciative. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you think the information should be there rather than a link to it, why didn't you put it there? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have quite clearly answered all of your questions and I cannot be bothered continuing to answer your trival questions about what was a very minor edit. If you cannot understand what I have written above then I question your ability to comprehend the english language. Or perhaps you are deliberately being obtuse in order to draw a response from me? Either way if you think the information should be included then FIX IT YOURSELF, but ensure it is done IAW WP:MOS and WP:MILMOS. Hopefully this is more clear. Anotherclown (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have quite clearly answered all of your questions - Of course you have! That's why I keep asking you to clarify things. (That statement of yours is so obviously false that I don't know what to respond to it.)

I cannot be bothered continuing to answer your trival questions about what was a very minor edit. - Have you ever heard of, or read, WP:CIVIL?

If you cannot understand what I have written above then I question your ability to comprehend the english language. - Question all you like. Be as rude as you like. None of your bad manners and rudeness address the fact that I have asked you questions and you have NOT answered them.

Or perhaps you ... - Have you ever heard of, or read, WP:AGF?

Either way if you think the information should be included then FIX IT YOURSELF

- a) That is not, nor was it ever, the point.

- b) I have fixed it myself. I did so some time ago.

- c) So the two explanatory options you offer are that I can't comprehend english, or I'm obtuse. I don't see a link between those and your unwillingness to answer questions you have been asked.

- d) Have you looked up the meaning of the word "redundant" yet?

Rather than revert your edit, I asked you POLITELY why you had done it. You responded with irellevant and/or false and/or vague and/or inaccurate and/or unclear statements. When I pointed this out, you became bad mannered and rude.

Hopefully this is more clear. - Oh, it's quite clear, but it contains no useful information with respect to the questions I have asked you and you have chosen not to answer.

This interchange has been fascinating. Farewell, and good luck for the future. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

		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 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you get a chance, would you mind taking a read over 27th Battalion (Australia)? I've expanded it a bit over the passed couple of days and its probably in need of fresh eyes to pick up typos etc. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me Ritch! Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm not sure if you know about this or if you'll have the time, but over the month of October the project is running a GAN review contest. It can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/GAN backlog elimination/October 2010 in case you are interested. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, if you get a chance would you mind taking a look at 35th Battalion (Australia) and 55th Battalion (Australia). I've done a bit of work on them today and they might need a copy edit. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, I made a couple of minor edits but otherwise these are excellent articles IMO. Very well written and well structured with the appropriate amount of background detail. Great work again. The only point I have is that in 55th battalion you mention Ryan's VC twice, which probably isn't required. In the summary of awards to the battalion during WWI you might consider linking to two sentences and removing Ryans name. Just a thought though. Anotherclown (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for that. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've just removed the prod deletions of Kachin Independence Army and Kachin Independent Army. Both articles cite reliable sources and appear to be about notable organisations, and the POV problems didn't seem problematic enough to warrant deletion rather than editing the articles (to short stubs if need be). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thats your opinion I guess. At the very least they are both very poorly written and something needs to be done about merging them (as they are clearly about the same organisation). Any suggestions? Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, I've undertaken the GA review for Battle of Suoi Chau. The page is here: Talk:Battle of Suoi Chau Pha/GA1. Largely the article looks very good, IMO, but I have left a few comments that I think need to be addressed before the review can be closed. Have a good one. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, I've made those changes as suggested and responded. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		Please accept this award for your great work with the Battle of Kapyong article Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Anotherclown (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I started that page was I created a read link on the page of the cannon that replaced the M1918 in 1943. And I will admit it is a skimpy hatchet job. But all the sources I had to it as the "240 mm Howitzer M1918". I have no way of knowing if that was it's actual official designation. But back then remember the US Army was weird, for example why not just produce an exact copy in the 280 mm caliber and have it in production before the end of WW1? But thanks for setting up a redirect. Because the original name has links to it in other pages. And if you have a chance click the link to the French cannon it was copied from the Mortier de 280 modèle 1914 Schneider. Excellent article with great photos. On the page I created, the only photos you can see in the ex. links from two Popular Science articles, and they are mostly about its installation, and the 1945 PS article gave some missing specifications in a chart. And again, thanks for helping and looking into that page. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, no worries at all. The article looks like a good start to me. Anotherclown (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I added some of your A/GAs to the various anniversary pages for display on the front page (eg Battle of Kapyong, Coburg and a few others). A large proportion of the incumbent entries are unsourced start class articles, so feel free to just self-serve and bump them off, in my opinion :) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to incorporate this photo in Battle of Kapyong without messing up the layout? Thanks in advance. Jim101 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jim. That is an excellent addition, I have included it now in the article where I think it most appropriate. Please let me know what you think. Wikipedia definately needs more photos like this to balance our coverage of the Korean War. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good, and I'm doing all I can on Chinese pictures. The problem with Chinese photo is that Chinese rarely to frame battles according to UN sources, so it's hard to be sure whether a Chinese pictures are actually talking about battles that is defined from an UN point of view. Jim101 (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I imagine that could be a difficult issue to resolve. Cheers and keep up the good work. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This may also be of interest to you. Jim101 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks again. I have added it to First Battle of Maryang San. Anotherclown (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Anotherclown, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Anotherclown/Draft1. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D Coy 1RAR patrolling outside FSB Coral May 1968 (THU680596VN).PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:No 6 Gun FSB Coral 13 May 1968 (AWM P01769).PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:NVA dead outside FSB Coral 13 May 1968 (AWMP01769).PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:D Coy 3RAR during Operation Pinnaroo March 1968 (AWM BRN680261VN).PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 07:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:CH47 at FSB Coral 12 May 1968 (AWM P01770).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Australian defenders at FSB Coral May 1968 (AWM ERR680515VN ).PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 07:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, I just took a bit of a run through Battle of Coral-Balmoral. Excellent work as usual. A couple of things I saw but couldn't rectify:

• check the syntax of footnote 6 "between 30 June 1968..." and when?
• check the second initial of the Stuart source, both Google and Worldcat say it is "F." not "R."

Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, thanks for that. I have fixed those now - good spot. The article stills needs a lot of copy-editting as I was forced to move it into the mainspace prematurely due to the bot issues with my images. Lesson learned there! Anotherclown (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, I'm wanting to add an image of 7 Bde personnel in Afghanistan to the 7th Brigade (Australia) article. Do you have anything in your personal collection from your jaunt that is (1) appropriate, (2) is "sanitised" and (3) that you'd be willing to upload? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all mainly convoys and some pics of me and a few of the guys I'm afraid. You're welcome to have a look when you come around next but I don't think I have anything which would be illustrative of the brigade as such. Sorry mate. Anotherclown (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

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) 21:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you were doing cleanup on this article. There is a reference to Ricklefs in the notes which doesn't have a corresponding book title in the sources. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be this one, but I'm not sure: [3]. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good spot Yoninah... not sure it is that book though Rupert, as google books says it only has 82 pages where as the orphan inline citation references page 224. Will keep looking. Anotherclown (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Another candidate is Ricklefs "A history of modern Indonesia since c. 1300" (1993). This book is listed as a reference in Indonesian National Revolution yet in the inline citations they use Ricklef 1991 (likely a typo) and I would say the author of South Sulawesi Campaign may have just repeated the error by mistake. Unfortunately Google books doesn't have a preview for this one so I can't check it. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that on the balance of probabilities it is the Ricklefs 1993 work above. I'm going to the State Library again next week, and they have that work, so I will take a look and confirm then. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, it is the 1993 work and the page 224 is correct. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - should all the references to Ricklefs 1991 in Indonesian National Revolution be changed to Ricklefs 1993 as well? Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On the balance of probabilities, I think so. Unfortunately, I only looked at page 224 when I was at the SLQ so can't confirm all those for sure. Sorry, I got distracted by the three volumes of RAE history that they had there and as such shirked my other duties. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Andykatib might be able to confirm this if you send them a message. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry. Will do. Anotherclown (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi guys, concerning the Ricklefs citations, there are several different editions of the book. Since the 1993 one is the latest, I think it will be a good idea to have the 1993 edition. The copy of Ricklef's History of Modern Indonesia I borrowed from the library I remember was the older 1991 edition. This explains the confusion. But now that you have checked with the 1993 edition and confirmed the information, that would be the best to rely on. The 1991 edition is considerably shorter so it won't be as helpful. Andykatib 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasons for proposing the deletion of said article, and, honestly, I wouldn't terribly mind it being deleted, but I still think that deletion is rather harsh. I would propose merging it into another article. I would also like this discussion to be moved to the article's talk page, where it belongs. --Interchange88 ☢ 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

By all means if you would like to start a discussion on the article talk page please do. Re merging: yes that could work, maybe to Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) or even just redirect to the same page? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Acutally it seems like another editor has already done this anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

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) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, you can find some useful scripts here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, added these now. But how do I use them? Are they meant to come up under the tool box because I have nothing but the normal stuff there? Or do I need to tweak my preferences or something? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Standown, I worked it out. Just had to select monobook in 'appearance' in the Preferences! Anotherclown (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Advisor as an automatic edit summary also. You just have to click the hyper linked "Edit summary" above the box where you would normally type it manually. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering about that. Anotherclown (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've expanded it a bit more, but I've not been able to find anything else about current commitments other than the brief paragraph that is already in there. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Too easy, have reassessed as B now. Pretty sure 1/19 has supported Anode to the Solomons aswell so if you can find a ref for that that would be good to. Anotherclown (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if I can find a media release, but so far nothing much is coming up. I think one of the 08/09 class was posted there as cadre, so maybe I might be able to get something through the Old Boys Network. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, it helps if the right search term is used. Finally found something. Added it now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep thats good now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, mate, I've added further comments to the Gang Toi GAN. Please review when you get a chance. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Done now... there were a lot more problems than I thought! Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I tried to give it the ACR treatment. Looks quite good really, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the latest feedback and updates to the article. I'd like to thank you for your past GA review of the article, it really spurred a few editors - and I dare say the article showes some improvement. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tomobe03. Please accept my apologies if my comment was a bit pointy, I was a little annoyed but that should be no excuse. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Ultimately, the article was improved and that's what's really important.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Your view on this matter will help shape a consensus in the discussion here. I'd appreciated it if you'll find time to add your input, Regards--Macarenses (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anotherclown! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For your ongoing and devoted work on Military History Good Article reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Mate, while I've personally benefitted a great deal from your dilligence in this area, I know I'm far from the only one -- thanks again, and I will be completing Battle of Coral-Balmoral before New Year...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Ian Dougald McLachlan was very easy to review though as everything had already been done for the ACR! Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)