User talk:Gjw9999

Welcome!

Hello, Gjw9999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 00:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Military History project

Hello Gjw9999! Thank you for your contributions to military history-related articles.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors who are also working on military history topics, please take a look at the WikiProject Military history—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please add your username here, and a project coordinator will soon be along to welcome you. If you're not sure about joining, why not sign up to receive our monthly newsletter, The Bugle? It is a great way to get a feel for the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello Gjw9999 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unit Colour Patch

G'day Rupert I want to upload a photo from the Australian War Memorial to use on the Unit Colour Patch page. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C41466 I have done this once before successfully, Geoffrey Sambell Ketoba, New Guinea, but I can't remember what I did. I have also done it unsuccessfully for the 14th/32nd Battalion, a photo showing them prepairing guns on Bougainville (or was it New Britain?), when I was editing it to give the Australians suitable acknowledgement. Unfortunately I didn't do it the same as the first time (although I thought I had) so I received a lot of messages asking me to rectify the attributions, none of which I could figure out, so the photo was taken down and I received a message saying that if i kept doing it I could be blocked etc.... So I want to avoid that. Can you guide me to the upload wizard that will go through the long process and will allow me to notify Commons that the AWM, clearly on their web pages, revokes copyright for these old WW2 photos?

Cheers Greg GJW (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I use this wizard when uploading AWM files: [1]. If you select the "It is from somewhere else" option and then use the {{AWM-image}} template (with X being the collection number) for the source field in conjunction with the {{PD-AustraliaGov}} licence, you should be okay, so long as the images are pre-1969. For instance, see this tweak I made to your image of Sambell: [2]. Once you have uploaded the image, please ping me and I will take a look to try to help you make sure the licence is correct. Incidentally, regarding the 14th/32nd image, what was the AWM collection number of the image you were trying to upload? I will take a look to see if it should be re-uploaded. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rupert The 14th/32nd picture had the following caption when it was published, before it was deleted. This was on the New Britain Campaign page under Australian Operations, not the 14th/32nd Battalion (Australia) page.

File:3908584 CUTARP PLANTATION, JACQUINOT BAY, NEW BRITAIN. 1944-12-15. HQ COY, 14 32 INFANTRY BATTALION CAMP.jpg

Headquarter Company, 14th/32nd Australian Infantry Battalion preparing light artillery at Cutarp Plantation, New Britain, near Nail's Jetty. December 1944. (Australian War Memorial image 084320).

The coordinates are just about 5.557 degrees South, 151.204 degrees East, if you need them.

One idea I'm trying to promulgate is that once the 'militia' were in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II, they were in it, with KIA, DoW, malaria and DoS, trudging guns and Vickers and mortars along jungle tracks, kamakazi assaults to deal with, medals, the full experience. I even get talks at the Shrine from staff and volunteers saying "the xxth/xxth was a militia unit and so was not involved in the fighting, ah, but the 2/14th, though......" (!!!) (What about the 39th, if we're talking Victorian units?!)

Perhaps you could check the image of Corporal Bassett in the "CMF" section of Unit Colour Patch and check that it is not doomed for deletion? A militia man who won a DCM, who'd have thunk it?!

What I will do is keep looking on AWM for other photos of CMF diggers with colour patches showing, to display alongside Bassett in the CMF section, and start a completely fresh upload using your instructions to try to publish just one for the moment, then ping you to let you check how it goes. (I envisage maybe another three to sit alongside Cpl. Bassett.)

I have requested a copy of the Glyde book on colour patches, from the stacks, so I'll be continuing with adding sources but this time from the 'horse's mouth'.

Cheers, thank you GJW (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've tweaked the licence and source presentation for the Bassett image. The Cutarp image also appears to be in the public domain to me, and could be re-uploaded with a PD-AustraliaGov licence. Regarding your point about Militia units, agreed. Indeed, Militia units were involved in quite a few significant actions, e.g. Milne Bay (61st), Kokoda (39th), Salamaua–Lae (3rd and 5th Divisions), Bougainville (3rd Division), for example. Indeed, Frank Partridge received a Victoria Cross while serving with the 8th Battalion and Reg Rattey received one for his actions as part of the 25th Battalion (although Rattey was a 2nd AIF member). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, re the Cutarp image, I have uploaded it here with (hopefully) the correct licence: File:14-32nd Battalion at Cutarp (AWM image 084320).JPG. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks nice, Rupert. I liked that photo, because in one it conveys the multiple ideas of a base, supplies on the way, some serious looking weaponry, and the laconic Aussies ("yes, they really did let the Militia play with gunnery!" :-) ) putting it all together.

Thank you for loading up Cpl Bassett, too. I haven't had any warnings about him yet regarding copyright.

The photos of the statues of Pompey Elliott and Simon Fraser are my own, so I just made them publicly available.

Cheers, Greg

GJW (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Greg, no worries, WRT the statues, there is sometimes an underlying copyright to consider, though. In addition to your work as the photographer, there is also the copyright of the sculptor to consider. In some cases this precludes uploading the image, even if you took it. In the case of the Elliott and Fraser statues, though, I am pretty sure that Australian Freedom of Panorama laws allow you to upload these. (Hence, I've added the FoP Australia tag to hopefully make this clearer for any passing reviewer). Anyway, please be advised that after tonight I will be offline for the next couple of weeks -- heading out bush for an exercise. If all goes well, it will be targets down-patch out around 19 April, followed by some Easter leave. Worst case, it might be pushed out to 20 April, but that would make us all in HQ very unpopular, so we will most likely find a way to avoid this... ;-) Regarding Militia gunners, I wonder if you might be able to add a unit colour patch to 13th Field Regiment (Australia)? Anyway, thanks for your efforts. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert

Could you provide a verbal description of the arty patch you want? eg. "equilateral triangle divided upper sinister to lower dextro red over blue, with purple trim", or "horizontal rectangular blue patch with three-peaked red zig zag" etc?

Or, a URL? Or both?

Then I can draw it easily.

I was trying to move onto artillery, but have found it confusing so went back to the Provos for a while (I feel I've done enough on them for now).

Are you artillery?

If you could give me some guidance on the Arty section, I'd appreciate it, or connect me with someone in the group who can clarify.

I must admit I am finding unit colour patches for artillery a little bewildering. Some of the issues include:

regimental associations mixing up left and right side patches (especially for the diagonally divided rectangles and triangles - orientation matters)
claims that batteries own colour patches (eg. the same patch being named "the something regiment" in one source and "the something battery" in another, even to the extent that a particular patch could be an anti-tank battery or anti-aircraft battery or just as likely sigs or target acquisition) - is this something to do with Ubique, ie. the same patch can be everywhere?
public monuments that confuse the likes of me, eg. the same patch on monuments such as:

2/2nd Heavy AA Regt, 32nd Australian Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, 2/17th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery and 112th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment

https://aadaa.com.au/air-defence-anti-aircraft-memorials/

(can a light AA battery be part of a heavy AA regt?)

Does fortress mean "arty" or "arty sigs"?

If someone can organise the information and source a list of some images for a WW2 Arty section I'd be happy to do the images and the writing, etc. A modern section, too - whatever.

Thanks for thinking of the licences for the sculptors - I should have thought o that. I referred to the Shrine which names the Fromelles sculptor (Corlett), but haven't found out yet who did the Elliott. Did you know the original Fromelles/Fraser statue is in France, and the Melbourne one is an exact replica made later from the same mould?

PS: My highest rank was Staff Cadet, a lifetime ago! But I'm in the 57th/60th Bn Association (granddad), his older brother was 8th Bn chlorine-gassed at Ypres, and his brother in law (my great aunt's husband) was a Tobruk Rat, a 2/32nd Inf Bn cook who ended up carrying a rifle doing salvage - they had to be versatile! My other grandad drove trucks for the engineers between Melbourne and Townsville - lugging bulldozers etc - for the duration 1939-1945 - he was in his 40s. Lots of interest for me to draw upon.

Cheers Greg GJW (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert

I was in the library the other day and saw "The architect of Kokoda". I added Bert Kienzle (and his brother, and his daughter, I guess as a citation) to a generic Wikipedia page called "Kienzle", about the German surname, before I realised there was a page specifically for him - I don't know how it didn't come up in my initial search. Anyway me edit of "Kienzle" stands. Would you like to check it? It may not come up on any Mil Hist radars. I see that you were involved when (the author/daughter?) created Bert's page.

Have a good time FID, wear ear plugs!

Greg GJW (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, Rupert, here goes with the artillery patch, re 13th Australian Field Regiment. I have used the plaque from the following, a diagonally bisected circle with 2nd AIF grey trim (but it's not the 2/13th?):

https://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/conflict/ww2/display/92361-13th-field-regiment

However, this is another artillery ambiguity that I'm not sure about. It seems that the following unit lays claim to this patch, also a regiment level formation, 2/8th Australian Field Regiment from March 1941 until Nov 1942, at which point they became officially 'Rats'.

http://regimental-books.com.au/28-australian-field-regiment-remembers-world-war-ii-1939-1945-p-286.html

Their Wikipedia page shows only the 'Rats' version, 2/8th Field Regiment (Australia).

Also, this Gunner Cundy on AWM seems to be wearing one without grey trim, which more reflects the name. At least it unambiguously shows the left sleeve so we know the diagonal is the correct way - lower sinister to upper dextro:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C332431 "Nuriootpa, SA. Studio portrait of S11440 Private Elliot Lawrence Cundy, 13th Australian Field Regiment."

Maybe the 2/8th has grey trim and the 13th doesn't. Plaques can get it wrong, despite best intentions and memories, so maybe there should be no trim for the 13th. (I have seen a cavalry plaque with the brown, red and green in the reverse order (not the 6th Cav Commandos).)

I have published it as 13th regt with grey trim, but I need an artillery type to explain why we see this doubling up. I'm sure there's a really interesting heraldry reason for these observations, which I will then write about, once I understand it, but I haven't seen a comprehensive explanation yet.

Cheers Greg GJW (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, you know what, my gut says no trim, so I'll put that one up and we can think about it in two week's time.

GJW (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Greg, sorry for the late reply -- got back this afternoon and had to clean some of my gear. Anyway, thanks for uploading the image for the 13th Field Regiment. Unfortunately, I can't clarify the double up you mention above, or some of your other queries, I'm sorry. I am not artillery -- although I have had some experience firing a 105 (in training, only). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADF navigation template

G'day, regarding your edit here: [3], not sure if you saw my edit summary explaining why the {{Australian Defence Force}} template it isn't relevant in that article, or not. If not, no worries, I will explain again here. If you did see the edit summary, however, and you decided to re-add it regardless, then I ask you not do this. Per site guidance regarding reverting and discussion, once someone has reverted one of your edits, you should discuss it rather than make your change again. This is part of establishing consensus. Anyway, my reasoning for removal of the template is as follows: firstly, the ADF did not exist at the time the 57th/60th existed (the ADF came into being in 1976). Secondly, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, we only include such templates in articles that are actually mentioned in the template. The 57th/60th is not mentioned in the template, and is such the template should not be included in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Rupert. I won't put it back. Now I think about it I can see it's for fairly high order and more modern formations. Thank you for keeping an eye out. I've been writing and editing and being edited for many years so I have no qualms about following editorial guidelines, and I appreciate your guidance. :-) Greg GJW (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Greg. Not sure if it is on your list to get to eventually, but I wonder if you might be able to put together the colour patches for the three Australian World War II corps-level formations: I Corps (Australia), II Corps (Australia) and III Corps (Australia)? I have created a pretty rough one for III Corps, but it could definitely stand to be improved: File:HQ Australian III Corps colour patch.png. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. The reference for the patches can be found here: [4] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Rupert I would like to put a photo from the Australian War Memorial into the Unit Colour Patch article. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C41466 I have done this once before successfully, and once unsuccessfully (14th/32nd Battalion). I don't want to become blacklisted over this issue. I know I went through a process the first time thaat took me to a long list of sources that were allowed

Revert

Hi, I wondered why you reverted the obvious error here. The |accessdate= parameter cannot be in the future as you have supplied causing a cite date error to be issued. The accessdate is the date you view the reference page so cannot be later than the current date. Keith D (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

++++++ Thank you, should have been 2018. Even though I just added the citation, I saw the diagrams on Digger History before Christmas.

Thanks for the correction. Keith D (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

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

Artillery colour patches

G'day, Greg, I hope you are well. I have recently created a couple of new articles on artillery units, and was hoping you might be able to create some UCPs for them. The relevant articles are: 2/1st Medium Regiment (Australia), 9th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery and 22nd Field Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery. No pressure if you aren't keen, please just let me know. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert, shall do. The thing I discovered with Artillery 2nd AIF is that the units were deployed far and wide, attached to infantry formations or as fortress mostly, but they retained the colour patches and affiliations with their original regiments. So, for example, a light field battery in New Guinea and an anti-aircraft battery in Darwin could have the same colour patch because they originated from the same regiment. I will check them out.

Cheers, Greg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Artillery is proving to be difficult. I think the reason is that there are so many changes. They are frequently: shifted geographically, merged and downsized, disbanded, reformed, attached to different formations (including corps, divisions, regiments and brigades) changed in name when new technology comes along (eg. they go from medium to AA to heavy mortar and back to medium, etc). And I think part of the upshot is that their histories are not as well kept nor as well written as some other units, such as grunts (the most obviously stable with clear lineages), armour (a horse is a bren carrier is a tank as far as they're concerned!), engineers (a bulldozer still looks like they did in New Guinea in 1944) or transport (likewise, a petrol tanker is still a patrol tanker). It seems like only artillery would go through as many as three formation changes in a year. This makes it hard to follow their lineage and also to determine, in many cases, which colour patches they wore.

Were you aware that Glyde actually called the 22nd Field Regiment the 21st/22nd Field Regiment? I have the list from Glyde which has been truncated from 'Digger History' and only the 22nd, of the three you are asking about at present, is mentioned, albeit as I said being called the 21st/22nd.

On top of that, artillery units are very small compared to, say, grunts or engineers or pioneers or even armour. A brigade might have three batteries which could be only 9-12 guns which means about 36-48 people not including support and train, nothing like the number who would pass through an infantry battalion (probably up to 2,500 throughout WW2, and even more in WW1 (because of the devastating effects of artillery!)

In some cases, also, I think the obverse (right sleeve) patches are erroneously given as the unit patch. This probably happens because someone (such as Glyde) sees them in an envelope retrieved from a Q-store shelf somewhere, and there is nobody to talk to who saw or remembers which way around they went, and nobody has written it down.

Anyway, I am getting some ideas. I'd like to run them by you before we publish them on 'Unit Colour Patch' or the artillery pages you are creating.

Am I able to upload them and then publish them just on this talk page without showing them publicly for the time being? Or I can publish them with the higher formation names before assigning them to the more specific regiments.

What I think so far:

1. I think the 2/1st Medium probably had the same patch as the current 8th/12th Regt RAA, except rotated 90 degrees to the left - a vertical blue rectangle with the red band with one leftward 'zig-zag' in it. Glyde designates this patch as "all medium artillery brigades" for WW2 2. For the 22nd, we know they went through several changes. I'm thinking: a) attached to 2nd Infantry Div in WW1, possibly therefore the diamond shape divided vertically blue beside red; b) in 1941-1942 became part of 2nd Cav Div, adopted number 591 of Glyde (Digger History), square divided upper Right to lower left red over blue; c) then superseded by Glyde 600 1942-1943 adopting the upside-down 'house' shape divided upper right to lower left blue over red; d) then in 1943-1944 adopting Glyde number 602, the compressed hexagon divided upper right to lower left red over blue

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-badges/patches/armd.htm

3. I know the current 9th is an oval divided upper LEFT to lower right, red over blue (unlike previous versions, say the 3rd Div Artillery in WW1 which was divided upper RIGHT to lower left red over blue)

Once we decide which is which, they're drawn and ready to go up.

Cheers, Greg

G'day, Greg, thanks for looking into this. If the files are uploaded to Commons, they can be renamed later if you desire -- I have file move access there if you need assistance with renaming. Unfortunately, the Digger History site isn't loading fully for me anymore -- seems to cut off loading around the 2/7th, for some reason. Regarding point # 1 above: the 2/1st, I suspect you are correct in your belief based on Glyde -- although it is years since I have had access to the book. For point # 2: the 22nd, yes tracking that they merged with the 21st in 1943 (McKenzie-Smith's The Unit Guide includes this information on pp. 3,056-3,057). In this regard, potentially creating a file for the 21st/22nd might be the way to go, using Glyde. For point # 3: would it be possible to just upload the current oval that you mention above? As it is a current unit, that would probably be sufficient for the article's purposes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rupert Yeah, I guess the issue is not whether the patches will be named correctly, but whether those patches are pertinent to the three units we're currently looking at. That is, I know what the medium brigades patch looks like now for example, but was the 2/1st wearing that one? There could be other possibilities, such as they wore a divisional arty patch. Do you see what I mean? Especially because of the way that artillery batteries got pulled around to different campaigns and defensive positions like no other kind of unit ever did - the nature of the beast. So, yes, I'll upload all the ones I am thinking about (and the rest at some point), and then we can have a 'cogitate' for a bit and decide for sure whether they're relevant.

I agree that we can put the modern one for the 9th for the time being. If we later find that they wore a corps or divisional patch we can add it and put the date ranges in.

There is a Glyde at the State Library of Vic that I've gone to look at a couple of times (one can't borrow from there). I have copied the text for the units beyond where that web page now cuts off.

Is there a way we can communicate away from Wikipedia without breaching privacy or getting trolled? I think I have a fair idea where you may abode and if I'm right I was living right near there for three of the past four years.

Cheers, Greg

G'day, Greg, you can email me privately by going to my talk page and then finding the "email this user" link on the left hand side -- it will allow you to send an email to my linked email address. Will have to sign off now, I'm sorry -- at the range tomorrow, it will probably be a long day saying the same thing over and over again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no rush. Wear ear muffs! I'll send you the missing artillery text from Glyde so I won't breach copyright.

Battledress flashes

Rupert, I was hoping you would be happy with including battledress flashes on the Unit Colour Patch page. I think they fit. I think it's better than starting a new page, as they kind of flow between the original patches and the re-introduction in 1987 of that system. (I served during the shoulder flash time.) I was hoping though that the administrators (eg. you) wouldn't think the page was getting too big?

Cheers, thanks for the request about the new Arty pages (and well done), Greg

G'day, Greg, the battledress flashes look good to me. The page is getting pretty big -- indeed, my computer has a hard time loading it sometimes -- but it does cover the topic quite well, IMO. That said, I would caution against trying to put every patch in. The Commons category link for Colour Patches of the Australian Army will allow you to link to all of the patches and flashes if you upload them into "Category:Colour Patches of the Australian Army" on Commons; the page itself should just provide an overview, while the Commons link can provide readers with a repository for all of the images. That said, I am enjoying your additions, so please keep up the good work! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Military history newcomer of the year 2019 runner-up

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For being voted runner-up in the Military history newcomer of the year awards for 2019, on behalf of the Milhist coordinators I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar. Well done and happy editing! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020

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

Unit color patch

Isn't that page really a bit too long? I believe that it can be split out. Its length is causing some problems, mostly readability. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point. We are thinking about it (MilHist Group). On the flip side, there are over 120 sub-headings, and it is one coherent story. The information is divided first by conflict (or peacetime), then by chronology for WW1 as the system of patches was being developed as a concept, then for WW2 by seniority of service in the Order of Battle because the system was well established by then. Then came the two replacement systems after WW2, then the re-introduction. I will contact other MilHist editors and discuss with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjw9999 (talk • contribs)

Yes, please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Unit_colour_patch#A_radical_proposal. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]