Template:Archive box collapsible

You appear to have exceeded WP:3RR on Template:ISAF troop deployment and International Security Assistance Force. While you treated it as vandalism, the reverts being made to these pages would not meet a 3RR exemption of "obvious vandalism". I have blocked 190.10.0.121 (talk · contribs) for persistent edit warring, the IPs 4th block for doing this. Given the circumstances, with this IP address having a long history of disruption, I do not think any further action would be helpful in this instance. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no worries I guess. Not sure how an IP persistently reverting without explaination an edit I made that was fully referenced doesn't equal vandalism (especially given that users history) but whatever. How should I have proceeded - allow the IP to make the edit and tag (for something other than vandalism)? Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Removal of referenced material and similar is not normally considered vandalism unless it is clear that the user is trying to introduce deliberate factual errors e.t.c. Such edits certainly would not meet the higher mark of obvious vandalism for 3RR exemption. However the IPs actions were still disruptive so justifying a block. In such circumstances I would kindly try to get the user to the talk page first. If this failed I would wait a bit before reverting so I don't find myself in an edit war. If "slow motion" reverting still continued without violating 3RR I would make a report or ask for assistance at a venue such as WP:AN3RR or WP:ANI. If it was vandalism I would go to WP:AIV before 3RR was a concern, with an explanation for administrators if it is non-obvious vandalism such as introducing errors. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts towarding keeping the ISAF article accurate and free of vandalism. I have a feeling there is some miscommunication with the user (190.10.0.121) who seems to be creating vandalism right now. I like to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH and I am hoping the vandalism may be based on some misunderstanding. Anyway, it looks like we may have an edit war WP:EW on the ISAF article right now. It appears the user (190.10.0.121) has been editing Wikipedia since 2006, however, usually they leave no comments and never use article discussions. One time I was able to get this user (190.10.0.121) to leave a web page reference as a comment by imbedding a comment right next the entry that they kept editing. I was able to convert their comment into a reference. If we could get a discussion going on the ISAF discussion page then I believe it would be easy to find a consensus. Hope this helps. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abandoned Chinese positions Korea Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2502).jpg. 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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted now - you were just too quick. I was adding the licence as you tagged it, causing an edit conflict. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Abandoned Chinese positions Korea Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2502).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 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) 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Maryang San, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 06:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your updates to this article. I intend to start work on comprehensively updating it this weekend - much of its content is now outdated (some by about three years!). Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There are a few more sections that need updating so by all means go for it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I'm trying to reference the Kokoda Track campaign article. I've added quite a few citations to it, however, it still requires more to get it to B class in my opinion. I've added the citation needed tags to where I think they're needed but for which I haven't found anything yet. If you are keen to help out, I think that you have the Brune book which might be useful. Also, I've done a bit of reworking of the sections, so if you wouldn't mind reading through it now and seeing if it still makes sense, I'd appreciate it too. There are a few other issues too, as I see it: (1) the lead doesn't adequately summarise the article, (2) there is inconsistency in the citation/referencing style, (3) images could do with having alt text added. Any help with these would also be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Am getting smashed at work at the moment and still trying to re-write Battle of Kapyong. I will definately have a look though. Even got to work on Australia Day.... grumble. Good luck with it. Anotherclown (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, no worries, mate. Hope it all goes well. Will talk offline about it. Take it easy if you can. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. With the exception of the endash and the one sentence paragraphs, I don't see the advantages of your edit. Can I bother you to enlighten me please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit deleted needless spaces in the coding, that all. This reduces the bytes used by the article, nothing more.Anotherclown (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed it might be something like that. Thanks. --Pdfpdf (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. Note that, sometimes, "needless" is subjective, particularly when the saving is 418 bytes, and it makes no difference to the appearance of the article ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I added some info to this article. I will be adding more in the future but I think its ready for B but let me know if you need any more changes.--Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Looks good - I have reassessed as B class now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that thanks a lot. Ill have a couple more ready in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeng Siyu is the 64th Field Army commander, the one who is in charge of the Maryang San defense. I find it hard to add Peng Dehuai because he did not issue a single order during the battle. Jim101 (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. I think we should also have Dehaui as he was a higher level commander who would have ultimately been in command of the Chinese Spring Offensive. Indeed for similar reasons we have Ridgeway. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. Jim101 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch what I said above about the Spring Offensive - I've been editing Battle of Kapyong and am now confusing myself.... Anotherclown (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 02:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kapyong, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you take another look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel? Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am confused over whether I should take the not done template for my comment to mean that my suggest was not done because there was no need for it or not done because you are still looking into the matter. I'm prepared to offer my support for the ACR; however the red X is in this case ambiguous - it could mean one of two radically opposite possibilities, and I would like your personal clarification before I award a stamp of approval to the ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tom. I did respond on the ACR page itself about this issue but you may have missed it. I marked it not done because I didn't make the suggested change. Specifically, infantry company names in the Australian Army are "usually" written as they are i.e "A Company" but said phonetically, i.e. "Alpha Company". This is not always the case of course (in some popular histories for instance), but is a (current) institutional practice at least. It is also the style that I have seen used in most serious histories. In this case I don't really think writing the company names phonetically would add anything. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That tag is used to indicate that the notes aren't referenced in the text. Also, those references are generally linked to the corresponding notes. I did not see any such links, so I used the {{no footnotes}} tag. BTW, I was impressed by your article. It is a much better article than most of those I come across while patrolling new pages. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand, is there an issue or not? The inline citations in this article use the short reference method i.e. author, date and page and these are written in full in the References section. As far as I am aware this is fully compliant with the WP:MOS and WP:MILMOS. Are you say that you want an intext reference i.e. something like "15 Viet Cong had also been captured during the battle, as had a large quantity of equipment, including small arms and ammunition, crew-served weapons and grenades (Carland 2000, p. 180)." Thanks again for your patience in explaining this to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you link those inline citations to the notes at the bottom of the page, there won't be a problem. Thats how the inline citations in other articles are done. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean link? Can you give me an example please? Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I worked it out from WP:CITESHORT. You are talking about using the short footnote tag, i.e. {{sfn|Miller|2001|p=23}}, instead of coding it myself like I do: i.e. <ref>Miller 2001, p. 23.</ref>. That should automatically like the SFN with the full citation in the references list. Hmmm, you know this is the first time it has been suggested to me (not even during ACRs). Not sure its really a requirement of WP:MOS but I can see how it might be useful. Might have a go later but I have to go out now for a bit. Cheers again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm mostly a Wikignome, and am very picky about small things like this. regards, RadManCF (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Operation Coburg, Battle of Bita Paka, and First Battle of Maryang San, promoted to A-Class between October 2009 and February 2010, you are hereby awarded the A-Class Medal. Thanks for your exceptional work, we look forward to more high-quality articles in the future! Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I don't know if you have thought about it, but you should consider taking some of these to WP:FAC sometime YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YellowMonkey, yes definately. Still fairly new to A class reviews but have learnt a bit from the few that I have done so far. However I will be heading overseas very soon for 6 months so it will have to wait until I get back now. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well take care and come back safely. I'm sure you'll do us all proud YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do this again. Not only do some project not use A class, but you also removed the GA information from articles that remain GA (GA and A coexist). If the projects want to use A, then their editors can reassess the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - I also did that for First Battle of Maryang San, so I will revert that edit too. My apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. One for your last hurrah before you head off perhaps? I've done a small amount of work on Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion, just adding some sources, infobox etc. I don't have any paper sources for it, though, but feel it would benefit from the addition of at least one book. I was wondering if if you might have anything that discusses this unit? — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Unfortunately no I don't... so frustrating as it really only needs one more cite to be a B. I looked through my library and I don't have anything. Not even Redcoats to Cams by Kuring covers it, nor the official histories or any of the three histories of the Australian Army that I own! However, Robert Hall has written quite extensively on the service of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the Australian Army, so perhaps you might try a search of the library for some of his books. Good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my last, The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History by Dennis et al has some useful information. I'll see what I can add. Don't think it will resolve the "cite needed" tag though. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for that. I will have a look at the Mitchie library on the weekend to see if I can find something else too. But what you've added looks good. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think I got the cite needed tag sorted too. Hey you still right for tonight? Sean says he should be able to come for a bit too, and a few blokes from RMC 'might' turn up... although I kind of doubt it as one is driving from Oakey and the other has tickets for the Rugby... Tom and John should be there though. Don't know about Alex... Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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) 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:An Australian Sapper Cu Chi South Vietnam 1966 (AWM KEL660021VN).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).

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) 00:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anotherclown. Congratulations, you've got another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your time with this one, I know it was another big article to review. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Hope you're in good health and doing well. Hope you have a pleasant Anzac Day YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate. Yeah doing well... good to have net access again (the system here is not very reliable but its better than what some of the other blokes have elsewhere so I can't complain). Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit and comment repetitive, I don't agree. Yes, they are about the same topic, but they address different aspects of the topic, so it appears to me that there is no repetition. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the lead of an article should be succinct, but still of course summarise the article. To mention the anti-war movement twice in the lead seems repetitive to me, as it was just one (major) aspect of the conflict. I'm not attached to the wording as it is though and if you think it should be changed again please do so. Ultimately I originally felt compelled to change it more because it seemed like clumsy wording more than anything. All that said, is the statement actually mentioned in the article? And if so is it referenced? Otherwise it seems a little like original research to me. Anotherclown (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Some good points in there! I'll think about it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 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) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to copyediting. The reason I left the hyphen alone in the infobox when I copyedited was per the sentence just before WP:DASH: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." One of the exceptions that's been mentioned often is in infoboxes, tables, and in general where the font is smaller. I don't have any problem with your edit, but it also looked fine the way it was to me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I just had one of those moments where everything I ever thought I knew gets called into question. Thanks for pointing that out... I will have another look at WP:DASH. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI...it wasn't a duplicate post: the separate posts for Task Force Oz and Task Force NZ were both moved in during the ANZSP merging/creation/thingie. Either way, they're both irrelevant now, and I've archived everything thats pre-merge. -- saberwyn 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]