Archives

Template:Multicol Dec 08 – Jul 09 Aug 09 – Dec 09 Jan 10 – Jun 10 Jul 10 – Dec 10 Jan 11 – Jun 11 Jul 11 – Dec 11 Jan 12 – Jun 12 Template:Multicol-break Jul 12 – Dec 12 Jan 13 – Jun 13 Jul 13 – Dec 13 Jan 14 – Jun 14 Jul 14 – Dec 14 Dec 14 – Jun 15 Template:Multicol-end

I've been using the word processor on Open Office to change tag ref to efn and managed to add brackets on the end. Very careless....Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I've made worse mistakes for sure. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Children of Eden.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - if I recall this would have just been a redirect after a file rename I did anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Auckland Vulcans.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As above, just a redirect after a file rename so fire at will (if it hasn't occurred already). Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For completing 11 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've got the weekend off I'm looking at all the things I've got pending. Do you think it's worth reviewing items like this Outpost Snipe Point 175 Special Armored Brigade for a C class?Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gday Keith, these look in fairly good shape so far but are obviously fairly brief. To me Point 175 is easily a C but probably needs an aftermath section to pull it up to a B. Special Armored Brigade is very succinct but looks like a C also - any idea of the casualties they sustained, also perhaps add some detail on its formation and initial training etc? This info stuck me as not being present (although potentially its not available in the sources you have). Outpost Snipe is probably the one needing the most work - I think it may only be a Start-class at the moment, perhaps if you have got some free time you might consider adding a background / prelude section and an aftermath at least as this would provide a bit of context for the action described? Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I cited the articles as best I could with the OH and the NZ and A OHs but can't do much more with what I've got. I moved BCS to Babini Group to be consistent with Maletti Group and found a little more in Macksey about its last ride but I fear that the deficiencies need Italian sources to remedy. Thanks for the suggestions, I might find more about Point 175 in the OH.Keith-264 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added aftermath to Point 175 as suggested, good enough for B?Keith-264 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Point 175 is pretty close - Is there a ref for the "division remnants" table? Also Mario Balotta is mentioned in the infobox as the Italian commander but isn't mentioned in the article. Could this be included in the text with a reference somewhere? Likewise with the casualties and losses (mentioned in the infobox but don't appear in the article and aren't referenced). I'll have a look over the other two articles again shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK now?Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, yes that looks good to me. I've updated the assessment now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, I've managed to make a start on unfinished business and also found a decent source for Snipe, which I hope to do today, work allowing. Baggush will have to be gleanings I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, pls let me know when you are done and I'll have another look if you like. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Snipe is nearly done.Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got a lot done to the Babini Group but only by using some inferior sources. There's a bit more to follow for the Background section.Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Anotherclown (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, but regardless of the citation the numbers can't add up to 10%. That would mean 17k out of 175k French Union troops. There is no way to make that number work. If I find my copy of the Davidson book I guess I can try to harmonize the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.242.232 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2015

As I said in my edit summary [1] you will need to provide an appropriate inline citation that supports your contention. At any rate the main issue I have with your edit is that you did not provide an inline citation and that it did not maintain text–source integrity. Regardless, given that there is currently a different figure in the article and it appears to be referenced to what is I assume a reliable source (Davidson) it is entirely possible that two reliable sources disagree on the point in question (i.e. Falls and Davidson). In that case we don't just delete one set of figures we generally include both with citations and allow the reader to decide. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Great egret.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, pls delete of cse. Its simply a redirect following a file move. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Detention.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes as above pls delete, only a file redirect after a requested move. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Borderline.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per above, pls delete. Simply a file redirect following a move. Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Hobart.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like the others pls, only a file redirect that has been automatically created following an image move. Anotherclown (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Ho chi minh mausoleum 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise pls feel free to delete, it is simply an automatically created file redirect following an image move. Anotherclown (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi mate, I noticed you updating some WP:AUS assessments with the articles' MilHist A-Class rating. Naturally I think this makes sense but was wondering if you could recall when/whether WP:AUS had formally agreed to partner MilHist this way (as I recall Ships and Aviation did)? It's apropos at the moment because there's been discussion going on at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board about starting an ACR process there (meant to let you and Rupert know in any case) and I mentioned that a reciprocal arrangement between MilHist and AUS ACR would be good and didn't think there was one as yet -- but perhaps there is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Ian. Thanks for letting me know but actually that discussion at WP:AUS was why I updated the assessments - it was mentioned in the thread about implementing their own A class review and I believe it is now in the documentation here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment/A-Class_Review. That said prior to the discussion at WP:AUS there seems to have been approx. 40 + MILHIST A class articles that were also rated A for WP:AUS so I think at some point there was the belief around MILHIST among some editors at least that this agreement had already occurred (I seem to recall thinking this for many years but never really seeing anything in black and white - nor really ever looking for it though). I think YellowMonkey *might* of mentioned it once somewhere around the early years of my involvement but unfortunately he has long since left so I cannot confirm it (and its possible my memory is way off at any rate and I have just libeled an innocent). Not much help, sorry. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, so that's why you did it -- did seem a bit of a funny coincidence... I think the reciprocal arrangement note made it into the AUS ACR draft because I suggested it would be a good idea in the noticeboard discussion -- a bit chicken-and-egg I think, or wishing something into existence! I wasn't sure that the draft (and the arrangement) was considered as ratified by the AUS project, but OTOH no-one's objected so perhaps this will be the black-and-white pronouncement we're looking for... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gday AC If you have time can you check any local news down there to verify if Australia is going for 8 aircraft or staying with 7 - I made this update but not really sure what their (RAAF) plan is - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FOX 52: - Definitely 8 at this stage (although the upcoming Defence White Paper is meant to make a decision on the possibility of a further two to equal 10). According to a media release today from the Minister for Defence the 8th C-17A is due to be delivered in "late 2015" - pls see here for details [2]. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, thanks very much - FOX 52 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anotherclown,

Dropping by to tell you that I've nominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2. You commented at the MILHIST review, I thought you might be interested in dropping a line there. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My great uncle Colonel Edgar Nicholas Glotzbach commanded the first brigade at the battle of Suoi Bong Trang. I have a copy of the official report of his actions in the battle and was wondering if you had any interest in it. You seem to have extensive experience with editing/writing about Australian Military operations. Even though he is an American Colonel and it's an American report I was wondering if you would be interested. Thanks, ShadowHawk555 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I appreciated you making the offer. Realistically though I'm not looking at expanding that article any time soon so I wouldn't want you to go to the trouble of arranging to send it to me and then me not end up using it. That said is there a link to it already available on the internet somewhere or is it a hardcopy? If it is already available electronically it might be suitable for inclusion in the "external links" section of the article as it sounds relevant (and would probably be of considerable interests to readers looking for more information about the event - certainly I frequently look at similar reports when doing research etc). If its not available on the internet already have you considered arranging to do so? We could then link it as I suggested as long as it meets the requirements of WP:External links etc. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Guinea Air Warning Wireless, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollandia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bazentin Ridge shouldn't the article page show C-class? Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gday, yes I think so. Updated now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm on the last lap of Le Transloy so I'm mulling over Bazentin or Flers-Courcelette next.Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have a little pool of Australianized Vietnam articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thank you for the link but the heading clearly says that its "proposed". And it hasn't been edited since March 2014???? Like I said there is no policy that mandates the use of these non-English characters. Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been implemented, why do you think your articles are the only ones at odds with the rest of the encyclopedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]