User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Your GA nomination of 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, I've added my comments/suggestions to this now. Please let me know what you think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Operation Slipper
I suspect that this material on the SASR you just removed was my fault... (and has been in the article since I added it many years ago, back in the days before referencing was commonplace). Thanks for removing it. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gday Nick. No worries at all (and I could be wrong - its more the absence of anything to confirm it that is my concern). I recall at the time (2001 / 2002) there being something mentioned about the NZ SAS being attached to the SASR in Afghanistan but have never been able to dig any references up for it so I wonder if it was media speculation (certainly the two units have operated together on previous occasions and would have operated together in the early stages in Afghanistan although what the command relationship was I wouldn't know). There doesn't appear to be anything in Ian McPhedran's book about it (which I would have expected) so I thought it best to remove it at the moment. The NZ SAS article is fairly well developed (and referenced) and doesn't included anything on this attachment, although I unfortunately don't have Ron Crosby's book. The NZ SAS in the early days was part of TF K-Bar and I *believe* the SASR was originally meant to be, but ended up being attached to the Marines (Task Force 58) instead (this seems to be implied by my reading of McPhedran). I am quite unclear on the chain of comd that existed at the time though and the sources don't really seem to clarify it. Pugliese's (2003) Shadow Wars says the SASR was part of Task Force K-Bar (and there are a few other works of that vintage that also says this); however, AFAIK the SASR did not receive the TF K-bar Presidential Unit Citation because they weren't part of that TF. Of cse if something comes to light which clarifies it I'm more than happy to reinsert it. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the SAS squadron tried to keep out of Task Force K-Bar as it was seen to be being assigned relatively unimportant tasks by the US command. I can't remember where I read this though (possibly McPhedran?). Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy - I found a little more on this from Micheletti (2003) Special Forces: War on Terrorism In Afghanistan 2001-2003, p.143 (not an impeccable source though): "Contrary to what was sometimes written, the New Zealand SAS did not operate with the Australian SAS. The main reason for that was that the two SAS units operated in different zones and while the NZ SAS were dependent on the American units deployed in the Bagram area for their logistics and command elements the Australians were operating autonomously in the Kandahar region." I'm thinking of incorporating something along these lines into the NZ SAS article at least. What do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've added something now [1]. Will adjust if required. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- That looks good. My understanding is that the SASR squadrons were one of only a few non-US special forces units deployed during the early part of the war in Afghanistan which were self-sustaining and had their own transport (John Birmingham notes this in his rather good 2005 quarterly essay A Time for War: Australia as a Military Power). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've added something now [1]. Will adjust if required. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy - I found a little more on this from Micheletti (2003) Special Forces: War on Terrorism In Afghanistan 2001-2003, p.143 (not an impeccable source though): "Contrary to what was sometimes written, the New Zealand SAS did not operate with the Australian SAS. The main reason for that was that the two SAS units operated in different zones and while the NZ SAS were dependent on the American units deployed in the Bagram area for their logistics and command elements the Australians were operating autonomously in the Kandahar region." I'm thinking of incorporating something along these lines into the NZ SAS article at least. What do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the SAS squadron tried to keep out of Task Force K-Bar as it was seen to be being assigned relatively unimportant tasks by the US command. I can't remember where I read this though (possibly McPhedran?). Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Anotherclown,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Your GA nomination of 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)
The article 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of First Australian Imperial Force
The article First Australian Imperial Force you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:First Australian Imperial Force for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of First Australian Imperial Force
The article First Australian Imperial Force you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:First Australian Imperial Force for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Congratulations and thank you for your excellent work in leading the developing of this article - it's been a complete pleasure working with yourself, User:AustralianRupert and User:Hawkeye7 on it (in a fairly minor way). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise Nick, you made some very important contributions. Two heads are better than one and this one had five working on it (when you count PM)! Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Force for East Timor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish Rangers. 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) 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done
Been there, done that.
(further fix, will use preview one day...) - Yes, I've been guilty of that myself ...
Happy New Year! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gday, yeah I was making my own life rather difficult then! All the best for the new year. Anotherclown (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Army during World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3rd Division. 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) 09:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Done
The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Gallipoli Campaign
Greetings another, do you have The Ottoman Army 1914-1918: Disease & Death on the Battlefield Hikmet Özdemir Translated by Saban Kardas and the Erikson books? Keith-264 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gday Keith. No I don't have any of those unfortunately. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you're interested send an email to [rm] and I'll try to send them, once I've worked out how to zip them.Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy. Thanks very much for the offer but I don't think I'll have much use for them, at least in the short to medium term. I'm back at work from next week and probably won't have much free time. Perhaps one of the other MILHIST editors might though? Maybe post on the talk page there? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK If things change, let me know. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you're interested send an email to [rm] and I'll try to send them, once I've worked out how to zip them.Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award
|
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| For completing 9 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
Could you take a look at Murder of Kylie Maybury? There's no doubting the notability - it made the front page at the time, even pushing Reagan's win over Mondale over to the side. Paul Austin (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gday Paul - I'm afraid there is probably not much I can assist with here. It's not really an area I work in (I mostly confine myself to areas I have some knowledge of, i.e. military history and cricket). Is there a specific aspect you think I might be able to assist with? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was only four years old when she was murdered. I was hoping to find an Australian or Melbourneite that could help me flesh it out. Kylie deserves that. Paul Austin (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- A noble goal for sure. Unfortunately I don't think I can be of much help though. If you are looking for sources you might find something at Trove - http://trove.nla.gov.au/. It is a website run by the National Library of Australia and includes digitized Australian newspapers as well as links to various other sources, websites, journals etc. In terms of getting other editors interested in improving the article perhaps post something at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board? There may be someone there with the knowledge to be able to help improve the article. Anotherclown (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was only four years old when she was murdered. I was hoping to find an Australian or Melbourneite that could help me flesh it out. Kylie deserves that. Paul Austin (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Against all odds?
Thanks! (Appreciated!!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers for that - I figured they would embargo the announcement until later but there you go. Anotherclown (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
GA Cup - The Finals
 GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though! Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all! Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month. In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [2] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish! The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Good luck to all our finalists! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, 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) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
GA Cup Feedback Form
Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it. Your responses will only be visible to the three judges. Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. 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) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Final couple of RAAF squadrons
G'day mate, do you have anything in the way of sources/references for Nos. 26, and 28? Apart from No. 87 Squadron RAAF (which is mainly just lacking refs), and a couple of short lived squadrons (Berlin Airlift Squadron RAAF, Fighter Squadron RAAF, Rescue and Communication Squadron RAAF, and Seaplane Squadron RAAF), getting these to B-class would largely complete the Main Series squadrons. No. 292 Squadron RAAF could also do with expansion if you had anything on it. Nick has a progress page here that I've slowly been working through: User:Nick-D/RAAF sqns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- All these are in the Units of the RAAF series that I have (actually you can download scans at the Air Power Development Centre website). I was hoping to take 87 Squadron and Fighter Squadron, and could augment the others as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's also a book on the history of the RAAF reserves, though it's now rather dated and doesn't cover all the post-war reserve squadrons. I looked into doing No. 28 Squadron, but nothing comprehensive was available... - there are lots of stories about it in RAAF News though. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just following up, I actually have a draft of Fighter Squadron already -- its history seems a little more involved than the Units entry lets on, so I'd definitely recommend leaving that to me as I think I've about sussed it, I just need to get the wording right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers, Ian, no worries, I will definately leave Figther Squadron to you. It also looks like someone has added the missing refs to 87 Squadron over Christmas (and I must have missed it on my watchlist). I've put it up for re-assessment, but please feel free to give it your personal touch if it takes your fancy. At this stage, I don't have much plans to write anything significant for a while due to work/training courses etc which will las the next two to three months or so. But I will probably have a little time to do minor work over that period. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's a coincidence -- I was sure I had 87 Sqn on my watchlist too and it was in very ordinary shape last time I saw it, but now I find I wasn't watching it and it is indeed looking pretty good...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello fellas. Sorry I've been off net for a bit. AR - unfortunately I don't have much for 26 or 28 Sqn other than the Units of the RAAF entries. However, due to a serious service related injury it now appears I may have rather a lot of time on my hands for the next few months (although I'm currently in a drug fuelled haze at least until my surgery). Anyway I will probably be looking around for a project in b/n rehab etc (and watching the World Cup) so will see if I can get around to adding what I can to these articles. Although I might try and finish my work on the Papuan Infantry Battalion. Ian - ack your baggsie on Fighter Squadron. No worries at all, looking forward to reading what you come up with! Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers, mate, good luck with the surgery and enjoy the cricket! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello fellas. Sorry I've been off net for a bit. AR - unfortunately I don't have much for 26 or 28 Sqn other than the Units of the RAAF entries. However, due to a serious service related injury it now appears I may have rather a lot of time on my hands for the next few months (although I'm currently in a drug fuelled haze at least until my surgery). Anyway I will probably be looking around for a project in b/n rehab etc (and watching the World Cup) so will see if I can get around to adding what I can to these articles. Although I might try and finish my work on the Papuan Infantry Battalion. Ian - ack your baggsie on Fighter Squadron. No worries at all, looking forward to reading what you come up with! Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's a coincidence -- I was sure I had 87 Sqn on my watchlist too and it was in very ordinary shape last time I saw it, but now I find I wasn't watching it and it is indeed looking pretty good...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers, Ian, no worries, I will definately leave Figther Squadron to you. It also looks like someone has added the missing refs to 87 Squadron over Christmas (and I must have missed it on my watchlist). I've put it up for re-assessment, but please feel free to give it your personal touch if it takes your fancy. At this stage, I don't have much plans to write anything significant for a while due to work/training courses etc which will las the next two to three months or so. But I will probably have a little time to do minor work over that period. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just following up, I actually have a draft of Fighter Squadron already -- its history seems a little more involved than the Units entry lets on, so I'd definitely recommend leaving that to me as I think I've about sussed it, I just need to get the wording right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's also a book on the history of the RAAF reserves, though it's now rather dated and doesn't cover all the post-war reserve squadrons. I looked into doing No. 28 Squadron, but nothing comprehensive was available... - there are lots of stories about it in RAAF News though. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Goodenough Island
Hello,
You undid my modifications on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goodenough_Island... You wrote "explained in the body of the article and referenced". Yes thats right. However did you at least read it, just curious?
Let's quote the article then :
"On 3 October, the submarine I-1 arrived at Goodenough Island, and dropped off rations, ammunition, medical supplies, a radio and a landing craft. It took 71 sick or wounded men, all it could carry, back to Rabaul, along with the bodies of 13 dead. This left 285 Japanese troops on the island" (Australian troops landed on Goodenough the 22/10/42)
"The Japanese were believed to have suffered 20 killed and 15 wounded during the battle, along with another 19 killed prior to the Australian landing."--PacificWarExpert (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I did. 20 killed during + 19 killed before = 39 killed, which is what the infobox currently says. This figure is also specifically referenced to McCarthy and appears on page 349 (of the copy I own at least). Other than that I'm not too interested in your maths. If you have concerns with the information in the article, or the way it is currently written, now that you have been reverted you should articulate your proposed edit on the talk page of that article. If there is a consensus to change following a discussion then it can be implemented. See WP:BRD which explains the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Anotherclown (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- You dont understand my point. The infobox talks about the Goodenough land battle (10/22/1942-10/27/1942), are we ok? Cool. So now lets read the article and what MacCarthy stated in his book... Yes there were initially 353 Japanese soldiers on Goodenough in August 1942, but he also clearly says that only 285 remained on the island after the 10/3/1942. (you still remember what the infobox talks about?). Same thing with the japanese casualties, 20 of them died during the 10/22/1942-10/27/1942 period... The 19 others died during Americans and Australians air attacks who occured MONTHS AND WEEKS before the Australians landed on the island. Why do you deny this? Just carefully read the book if you really have it. --PacificWarExpert (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- G'day AC and PWE, I agree this change should definately be discussed per BRD. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to split the strengths and casualties in the infobox? Something like this might work: Strength: 353 (initially), 285 (during ground fighting) Casualties: 19 killed (prior to Allied landing), 20 killed (after Allied landing). Or something similar? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- So called PacificWarExpert - discuss this at the article talkpage as I have already asked, not my talk page. I honestly don't care about the specifics of your argument, only the process which you seem quite happy to abuse. Your pointed and rude remarks don't help either. I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE, I'm not denying anything, and yes I have the book (a digitized version is also freely available here if you would like to do so yourself [3]). At any rate if the 19 were killed in the preparation for the landing by air attacks in its lead up that would seem to be part of the battle to me at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we shoud rather find rapdily a compromise since we already presented our arguments. This whole affair has no sense. We have the SAME sources but we simply read them differently. Im ok with what AustralianRupert said. His solution is from far the most constructive. I will also add references in the infobox. Sorry for my rusted English. --PacificWarExpert (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Take it to the article talk page. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we shoud rather find rapdily a compromise since we already presented our arguments. This whole affair has no sense. We have the SAME sources but we simply read them differently. Im ok with what AustralianRupert said. His solution is from far the most constructive. I will also add references in the infobox. Sorry for my rusted English. --PacificWarExpert (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- So called PacificWarExpert - discuss this at the article talkpage as I have already asked, not my talk page. I honestly don't care about the specifics of your argument, only the process which you seem quite happy to abuse. Your pointed and rude remarks don't help either. I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE, I'm not denying anything, and yes I have the book (a digitized version is also freely available here if you would like to do so yourself [3]). At any rate if the 19 were killed in the preparation for the landing by air attacks in its lead up that would seem to be part of the battle to me at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- G'day AC and PWE, I agree this change should definately be discussed per BRD. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to split the strengths and casualties in the infobox? Something like this might work: Strength: 353 (initially), 285 (during ground fighting) Casualties: 19 killed (prior to Allied landing), 20 killed (after Allied landing). Or something similar? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- You dont understand my point. The infobox talks about the Goodenough land battle (10/22/1942-10/27/1942), are we ok? Cool. So now lets read the article and what MacCarthy stated in his book... Yes there were initially 353 Japanese soldiers on Goodenough in August 1942, but he also clearly says that only 285 remained on the island after the 10/3/1942. (you still remember what the infobox talks about?). Same thing with the japanese casualties, 20 of them died during the 10/22/1942-10/27/1942 period... The 19 others died during Americans and Australians air attacks who occured MONTHS AND WEEKS before the Australians landed on the island. Why do you deny this? Just carefully read the book if you really have it. --PacificWarExpert (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
I just read Battle of Coral–Balmoral. It is *superb*. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up
The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats! Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year. We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition. There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Desert War
I was rather surprised to see how untidy the Desert War articles had become but your spring clean has been excellent. I had a quick revamp of the main Western Desert Campaign page in mind after the oasis articles (last year I found that doing a few smaller articles in between the bigger ones, helped my Wikimojo and I have something similar in mind for the WWI & II oases) but cutting and pasting 1–2 paragraph summaries, has turned out to be more difficult than expected, due to the wayward quality of the other articles. The aftermath section is going to be difficult too, could you recommend recent sources which offer a summary of the campaign please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Gday Keith. Unfortunately I don't have very many sources on this topic. There is fairly concise overview of the campaign and its strategic outcomes etc in Holmes, (2001) The Oxford Companion to Military History pp. 992-993 though. It would probably give you a fairly good summary of the subject at least. Unfortunately Google Books only has snippet view - [4] Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Collapsible order of battle
I've been quite excited about managing to homage (copy) other peoples' work and put collapsible frames around OOBs but I'm not sure about their placement in the article, where might you suggest? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy - yes it is a fairly neat solution in my opinion where we include OOBs in an article rather than separating them (e.g. like we do in the Gallipoli Campaign article for instance). My reading of the WP:MILMOS/C is that information about "What forces were involved" should go in the prelude; however, I don't think a collapsible box would visually work in the middle of the article, so in the last section before the notes / footnotes like you have in Battle of Wadi Akarit works fine in my opinion. Just from memory many editors seem to have different opinions about where OOB sections should go in articles anyway (collapsed or otherwise) and I have seen a range of variations so I don't think there is any "thou shall not" rules being applied at any rate. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any guidance on placement in the relevant Academy article - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing an Order of Battle. Sorry for the non-answer, hope this helps though. Anotherclown (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think somewhere below the Aftermath header too, as long as it shows up in the contents box so people know. "What forces were involved" seems like a generic criterion so the detail of an OOB could be the separate. I suppose that if anyone objects I'll find out soon enough. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems a fair assessment to me. Knowing this place though someone usually takes exception to pretty much anything anyone else does in good faith though... grumble. Anyway my whinge is over (for now at least). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think somewhere below the Aftermath header too, as long as it shows up in the contents box so people know. "What forces were involved" seems like a generic criterion so the detail of an OOB could be the separate. I suppose that if anyone objects I'll find out soon enough. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You've got messages
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| For recently copyediting a lot of my articles , I hereby present you this Barnstar. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
Just (Western) Deserts
Thanks for the reviews, I'm rather enjoying tidying them up. Tobruk and Sonnenblume nextKeith-264 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- No worries at all. Great to see these getting some attention from someone. The area is surprisingly under-developed. Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Gallipoli Campaign
Hello - I can see you are trying to improve this article which is great; however, there really needs to be discussion about the way forward first. There are a number of issues with both of your edits in my opinion (just briefly one had too little information and no citations and the other one had too much information to be a useful summary). The Gallipoli Campaign article is currently listed as a Good Article and developed through a series of reviews. It is also a highly visible article so rather than making BOLD edits it seems to me that the best approach before making significant changes is to discuss any proposed change first on the talk page, develop a consensus about the proposal, and then implement those changes if there is agreement to do so. Anyway hopefully this clarifies my position. Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gallipoli_Campaign&diff=654426434&oldid=651572093 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelimAnkara1993 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff
Thanks for your vote. If you feel like, please take a look at List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot, also a featured list candidate. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding conflict
I've decided to create a section Talk:World_War_II#Slight_alteration in the talk page of World War II to avoid any edit conflicts, thanks.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Research Invitation
Hello Anotherclown,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects
Marge6914 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Another, would you mind having a look at the recent edit history of Operation Compass with a view to forming an opinion as to what's going on? I've tried to persuade another editor not to append lots of alternative casualty figures to the short sections, since they are synopses not essays and often have their own page. I think the other editor is sympathetic to the idea of putting the alternatives into the casualties section, where they can form part of a unified discussion but I notice that the identity of the editor is being disguised.Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Commented and added a few refs (unfortunately I couldn't find any of the others that are missing though). Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
your edits at Anzac Cove
While those unit names are certainly proper names and require capitalization, when the term is used to indicate multiple units then it ceases to be a proper name. Example: 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd and 8th infantry regiments. Those are the changes that I (correctly) made to the article. Primergrey (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, actually I think you'll find the interpretation of this capitalisation rule varies based on English variation. In Australian English, they would remain proper nouns regardless and would continue to take capitalisation. In American English, though, you would be correct, but only in decapitalising the first letter of the last word in the construction, i.e. "1st and 2nd Infantry regiments" (not "1st and 3rd infantry regiments, which I believe is incorrect capitalisation regardless of what English variation is being used). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Was not aware of that peculiarity of Oz English. (I'm Canadian). I will argue your second point, though. When talking about the 3rd and 8th IRs, you are defining them as infantry units, and are no longer talking about the specific units themselves. Primergrey (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Primergrey - thanks for the note. Re you response to AR - I don't agree and I'm not sure its even an English variation issue in this case but a misunderstanding of the intent of the sentence. In my opinion the intent of the usage in this article was indeed to refer to specific units by their name (they are already defined as infantry by those names and at any rate if the primary intent was to define them by role only a less specific construction along the lines of "three infantry regiments" would probably have been used instead of "19th, 20th and 21st Infantry Regiments"). Regardless, what does the MOS say about this issue? As far as I can see the only guidance is MOS:MILTERMS which seems fairly clear to me at least. Anotherclown (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I take the same line as Primergrey but notice that most don't. Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Gday Keith - is there a policy basis for this interpretation though? I've pointed to MOS:MILTERMS but haven't had any response IRT an alternative. Anotherclown (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Greetings, I didn't see much so I assume the first writer decides.Keith-264 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- An interesting point and I agree that is one of the ways Eng Var issues are resolved (although I'm not sure if this is one as the use of no caps doesn't seem correct to me in any variation of English). The main author of Landing at Anzac Cove is User:Jim_Sweeney (an editor based in the United Kingdom, although he doesn't seem to be active often anymore). I'm fairly sure that he adopted full capitalization (per this edit [5]) but I'm open to being corrected about that. Anotherclown (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if my b-class only policy has meant that my usage hasn't been challenged, as it would if I wanted to move articles to a-class?Keith-264 (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I take the same line as Primergrey but notice that most don't. Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Al-Shabaab support inside wikipedia
Hi, I have read your interesting comments about user:Middayexpress. You made the negative comments -as evidence- in [6].
Of course I agree with you, but I want to add the following information, in case you want to investigate the "Al-Shabaab-ISIS" issue & presence on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway:
MIDDAYEXPRESS: supposed involvement in MUSLIM TERRORISM SUPPORT
She is a Somali woman living in the UK, probably in London, who is accused to be with pathological behavior while controlling in en.wiki all articles on Somalia. She has caused to abandon Wikipedia at least one user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuckupd), who wrote that "I'm not the only one being attacked (by Middayexpress) without mercy" and "Middayexpress, you are hopelessly insane " and finally "I give up on Wikipedia. Middayexpress has accused me with so many lies that it has become unbearably depressing. I'm not the only one being attacked without mercy. One of these days, I hope she will be banned and then I might consider returning here."
Another wiki user (user: Buckshot06) wrote that "Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles." And this statement was supported by User:Bobrayner, who wrote that "I share Buckshot06's concerns. However, I feel the problem may be more widespread, as I have seen Middayexpress doing the same kind of pov-pushing on other articles related to Somalia and the surrounding region".
Buckshot06 wrote (on 17 February 2014): "Middayexpress, I remain increasingly concerned about your distortions of sources in both these articles. Beyond the issue of the TFG's security forces in Mogadishu in December 2006-January 2007, these include putting words in the mouth of a senior Ethiopian official, who did not say that Ethiopia had 8,000 troops in Somalia in November 2013, distorting a meeting between Italian and Somali officials in 2012 into a claim that Somali had started rebuilding its air force in 2000-2010, and inventing aircraft numbers and entire aircraft from the Library of Congress Country Study. Why do you continually readd the SM-1019s that are not listed in the Country Study?".....and user Nick-D (talk) added:" I've noticed that your edits to these articles seem to put an unduly positive "spin" on things. For instance, in your most recent edit to the Somali Civil War article [1] you removed material sourced to a January 2013 academic journal article by Laura Hammond in which she argued that "[M]uch of rural Somalia remains in the hands of al-Shabaab" and replaced it with more positive material sourced to a November 2012 news story which argues that 85% of the country was under government control at the time. You did not provide a rationale for this change (especially removing material outright rather than noting differing viewpoints) and I'm wondering why you made this change?"
User:Gobonobo added the negative comments that "Middayexpress can be a difficult editor to work with. Middayexpress tends to exert ownership over Somalia-related articles, employing an editing style that is combative and adversarial, often refactoring other's contributions and/or edit-warring to preserve their preferred version of an article. Sometimes Middayexpress exhibits tendentious behavior, removing sourced material that is critical of Somalia or Somali people". Additionally User:StoneProphet pinpointed that Middayexpress did "rampant cherry-picking of sources and content".
Middaexpress had fights from his first wiki-moments even with admins (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kwamikagami/old , who accused Middayexpress of "violating basic Wikipedia policy") and with many other users.
Middayexpress has even insulted users, like User:Sherurcij, who was called "racist" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia_Affair&action=historysubmit&diff=303950062&oldid=303948740 ).
Middayexpress was "restricted" from posting by admin EdJohnston for some months in June 2010, after an edit-warring with user StoneProphet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Middayexpress/Archive_11).
User:Baboon43 accused Middayexpress of meatpuppetry in a sockpuppet investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runehelmet/Archive ). He wrote: "Middayexpress is a meatpuppet master for Runehelmet as seen on Runehelmets talk page once middayexpress began into a dispute with me he went over to call runehelmet into the discussion 27 and rune also does the same vice versa 28..These two individuals would rather have a page dominated by somali-centric material and seem to turn a blind eye on other ethnic groups as seen here 29..Gyrofrog does not enter discussion on a wide scale like Runehelmet does so that is not comparable..If an editor pushes pov and seems to take your side in a discussion always and you go invite him then that is not acceptable..also your example about you and runehelmet disagreeing on article doesnt matter because that article is strictly somali oriented(squabbling in your own pot)..runehelmet would rather tag team if possible based on his behavior & he prefers to tag team strictly with Middayexpress....User Runehelmet also seems like a meatpuppet for User_talk:Middayexpress as clearly seen on runehelmets talk page [6]..midday passes on articles for runehelmet to add on his watchlist clearing way for both users to appear on WP:OBSART and wp:CAN..it seems other users have brought up their behavior in previous discussion 7..middayexpress invites runehelmet to discussions which is also clearly seen on the talk page..they back each other to push consensus seen here [8] & [9]..also the only time Runehelmet seems to accept consensus in a dispute is if middayexpress enters the discussion as seen here [10] & [11]" Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC). Furthermore, some wikipedians complain that user AcidSnow is a "meatpuppet" of Middayexpress, because is always helping her in all the discussions and topics about Somalia.
User:Bricology found that Middaexpress was "hiding it in a long, dense and relatively undifferentiated timeline" the issue of poaching as a source of funds for the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)#Moving_on...). He even wrote: "Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both".
This tentative to "help" the image of Al-Shabaab in Wikipedia (similar to the one denounced by user Nick-D ) raises doubts, and creates the possibility that Middayexpress has a supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Indeed she has an astonishing knowledge of Al-Shabaab activity in the last years: this knowledge can only be possessed or done by an insider (or a closely-related to an insider) of this terrorist organization!
Furthermore, Middayexpress has shown a "fanatical hate" (similar to the one of members of Al-Shabaab) against Christianity in Somalia, as is clearly evidenced from her cancellation of serious bibliography and data in the voice "Roman Catholicism in Somalia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320544261): she has made disappear that "The Bishop of Mogadishu, Franco Filippini, declared in 1940 that there were about 40,000 Somali Catholics due to the work of missionaries in the rural regions of Juba and Shebelle, but WWII damaged in an irreversibly way most of the catholic missions in Italian Somalia.[1] ". She angrily (as a possible al-Shabaab member or sympathizer) denied her POV-caused disappearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320948362).
Middayexpress even attacked with continuous "malignity" user Oldsettler accusing him of sockpuppetry until she obtained the help of "wikimafia" user Vituzzu (read about this Sicilian-calabrese: The Stewarts are firmly in control): she wanted and obtained to "decapitate without pity in Wikipedia" Oldsettler with the same kind of malignity & hate shown in Syria by ISIS terrorists. Oldsettler wrote "The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him/her or against him/her, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his/her typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his/her 60 archives and I have found that he/she is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS (read [46]) and that he/she has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He/she has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his/her continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote muslim POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he/she seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he/she identifies me with the Italians who colonized Somalia....and this can explain his/her attacks against me."
Furthermore Vituzzu is known in the Italian wiki as one of the main bosses of the “Italian wikimafia”. Some websites denounce him, like “Wikiperle” (read in Italian : htp://wikiperle.blogspot.com/2013/05/wikipedia-mai-criticare-la-famiglia.html) and “Perle Complottiste” (read: http://complottismo.blogspot.com/search/label/Vituzzu?max-results=100 ) and so do many Italian wikiusers (read in Italian: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Vituzzu/3 ; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Archivio/Archivio_riconferme_tacite/2012#Vituzzu ; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Archivio/Archivio_riconferme_tacite/2013#Vituzzu ). Vituzzu -he is from Calabria, the home of Ndrangheta (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/02/150224083921277.html)- has even been "blocked" many times in the Italian Wikipedia, even if he is an admin, and "strangely" survived without ever being banned (http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl… ): but this could only be possible because of his powerful "mafia" relationships!).
This help from wikimafia Vituzzu could or seems to be related to the growing relationship between muslim terrorism organizations and the mafia against & inside the Christian Western industrial societies (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PZMgorG2ojMJ:www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201211/20121127ATT56707/20121127ATT56707EN.pdf+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us): may be it is even related -as a clear possible proof- to the Middayexpress supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Even a possible link to Al-Kaeda cannot be excluded, because of the growing contacts between Somalian Al-Shabaab and ISIS (read: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/24/isis-reaches-out-to-somali-terror-group-al-shabaab/ ).
Indeed in London, between some members of the huge Somalian community, there it is a growing "hidden" support for Al-Shabaab; and Middaexpress seems to live there (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964218/Somali-terror-group-Al-Shabaab-calls-Westgate-style-shopping-centre-attack-London-s-Oxford-Street-chilling-new-video.html ).
If interested in further in formation, please go to http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/north-london-boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.182.190 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- G'day - apologies but this is well above my pay grade (which is of cse zero). Whilst I have previously had some interaction with that user I am not very knowledgeable in the field and don't often edit there so it is difficult for me to comment on whether their edits are correct or not. Perhaps you may wish to take your concerns to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? (Although I'll be honest with you in that they are unlikely to resolve anything there either). Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very good at defending itself against some of the more sophisticated forms for disruption that some editors seem to choose to participate in. Sorry but I cannot be of any more assistance than that. Anotherclown (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Tripodi, Paolo. The Colonial Legacy in Somalia. p. 66
January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award
|
|
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | |
| For completing 12 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Battle of Labuan FAC
Hi, Given your fine work on the Battle of North Borneo a few years ago, would you be able to look into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1 and leave a review? (negative or positive, of course). The review has been open for three weeks now and needs some additional reviewers. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- No worries - I've had a look over the article again and added some cmts on the review. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Australian Special Forces
Hello,
the changes you have reverted are actually correct, the support units are not actaully special forces but special operations forces (yes there is a difference). I have served with every single one of those forces listed and they will all tell you that they are not speical forces. Australia has only to special forces units: The Special Air Service Regiment and the 1st and 2nd Commando Regiments. The airforce and the navy do not have special forces units and the army only has those two listed above. Units like No.4 Squadron, the IRR and CLearence divers are not special forces! They are infact Special Operations Forces. Just please leave the edit as they are correect and will educate the public correctly intead of false information!!
Regards,
Lachlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryhistoryguru (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I cannot understand what you are attempting to achieve by your edits here and they seem to fall below our standards for inclusion so yes I have undone them again. The article already made the distinction between special forces and special operations forces (the very first sentence states "...the Australian military has raised a range of special forces and special operations units...") so what value is there in repeating this in several other places? Equally despite the concern you raise above the article at no stage labels No. 4 Squadron, IRR and Clearance divers etc as "special forces" (they are listed as "support units" only). So again I am unsure what your issue is here. Lastly, there were also a number of typos and style issues with your edits. If you wish to make further changes that's fine; however, if other editors disagree with them and revert you will be required to discuss them on the talk page and develop consensus before making them again per the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle outlined in the policy at WP:BRD. Not doing so could be seen as disruptive. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My friend I was the one who edited it to say that adn to tell people the difference. You're listing units on this page like No.4 Squadron who donot belong here because the support units do not belong on this page at all! As they are neither SFs or SOFs. I am trying to get them removed from this page beause they don't belong here! They do not fit into either category and by logic they should be one another page or the page title should be change. The correct way to put it is that Australia has only two SF units Commandos and SASR any other units should not be listed here unless the title changes. As a serving member I don't like seeing people giving wrong information, especially where many people come to find basic information about a countries military. Please remove the units, make another page if necessary or change the title. It is your call!
Lachlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Militaryhistoryguru (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pls confine further cmts to Talk:Special forces of Australia. Regardless, if you wish to change the scope of that article (which at the moment is only a very short stub anyway) I'd suggest you draft a proposal there. Anotherclown (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Capture of Schwaben Redoubt
If you get a minute, would you mind looking at the recent edits of Capture of Schwaben Redoubt to see if the newcomers are genuine? Having been sidetracked by the bloke who used pseudonyms I don't want to do it again. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I know that feeling. I had a quick look and I think it probably is a good faith account; however, I don't have access to the Check User tool or anything like that so I'm really just guessing on the basis of previous edits etc. If issues arise in the future it is possible to request a CU occur but the policy on its use if fairly restrictive for privacy reasons I believe so there needs to be fairly compelling evidence of sock puppetry presented first (which can be a real pain to gather - i.e. going through "diffs" etc). I will keep an eye out on other World War I articles to see if a pattern emerges which suggests some untoward though. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think I jumped the gun because we've managed to hold our noses and agree on British as opposed to Irish or Ulsterman. ;O). I'm recovering from the shock of a full working week and an illness in the family so I hope to finish off various loose ends soon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
2015 GA Cup
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor. |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Greek Italian gig
From being a mess it's shaping up (except for a bit of sprawling in the midriff). Thanks for watching.Keith-264 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, good to see it moving forward. Happy to assist with minor formatting / proof reading / typos etc as always. Anotherclown (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Question on RAN air squadron numbers
Hi Anotherclown! As one of the more prolific RAN birdie article contributors, I wonder if you can answer a question that has recently struck me.
I was as wondering if there was a specific reason or justification behind the RAN recycling old RN squadron numbers (and claiming the associated lineage) when the RAN Fleet Air Arm came into being, instead of a) using fresh numbers that followed on at the end of the RN list or b) starting from the top with an Australian-specific list. I imagine that is has something to do with the level of integration the RAN still had with the RN at that point, but do you know of any specific details that could explain this?
Also pinging @Nick-D, AustralianRupert, and Nick Thorne: who may also be able to help. -- saberwyn 03:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Gday - very interesting question but unfortunately I don't know for sure. The initial RAN FAA squadrons seem to have been formed in the UK following the training of their pilots and receiving their equipment there, and were then transported back to Australia aboard the Sydney after its acquisition (also from Britain). There is a little in Jones Wings and The Navy 1947-1953 p. 29 about this and he mentions (unfortunately only briefly) the process of 805 Sqn being re-commissioned into the RAN and bringing its RN battle honours with it (like ships did). As a guess I'd say your hunch would be correct. The British Admiralty offered significant assistance in the development of the Australian carrier capability including subsidising the cost of the two ships but also as a supplier of aircraft and other equipment, and significant involvement in the training of aircrew and other personnel. Indeed RN personnel (inc aircrew but also other officers and ratings) were attached to RAN FAA squadrons and the carriers for a number of years afterwards apparently. Anotherclown (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've wondered this myself, but have never seen an explanation. From HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22)#Aircraft it looks like Canada also used numbers in the RN's sequence for the RCN's aviation squadrons. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, yeah, like Nick I've also wondered this, but don't know of the reason. I suspect that there must have been some agreement after the war, but don't know really. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Looks like it'll remain one of life's little mysteries for now. -- saberwyn 12:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late to the party, but I've been away from home and not had access to my reference material. "Flying Stations: A Story of Australian Naval Aviation" chapter 2 "Buying An Air Arm" contains a lot of material about the process of setting up the Australian FAA. On page 44 there is the following, regarding action in 1947:
- Cabinet approval was finally given on 15 August, thus setting the seal on the acquisistion of a naval air arm consisting of two light fleet carriers, two naval air stations and three air groups.
- The important words here are "three air groups. A carrier air group consists primarily of it's squadrons. So the RAN squadrons were purchased as existing units from Britain as part of the deal. They were then transferred to the RAN as they were re-raised in the UK in order to fulfill the acquisition. BTW, this was always my understanding as a former FAA officer who served in VC-851 and VS-816, but of course that would be OR <grin>. - Nick Thorne talk 07:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late to the party, but I've been away from home and not had access to my reference material. "Flying Stations: A Story of Australian Naval Aviation" chapter 2 "Buying An Air Arm" contains a lot of material about the process of setting up the Australian FAA. On page 44 there is the following, regarding action in 1947:
- Thanks all. Looks like it'll remain one of life's little mysteries for now. -- saberwyn 12:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, yeah, like Nick I've also wondered this, but don't know of the reason. I suspect that there must have been some agreement after the war, but don't know really. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've wondered this myself, but have never seen an explanation. From HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22)#Aircraft it looks like Canada also used numbers in the RN's sequence for the RCN's aviation squadrons. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that the creation of the squadrons was as part of the package deal for the carriers. But why re-raise the designations of these old UK squadrons (which had been decommissioned and disbanded for several years by the time of that 1947 decision) instead of raising 'new' ones? That's what I'm curious about. -- saberwyn 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well naval air squadrons are a bit schizophrenic. They are really just administrative arrangements but they also have an identity like any other naval unit such as a ship and is thought of that way. In other words a squadron's identity still exists even when it is not currently in commission. The idea of simply transferring squadron identities in this way would be entirely natural. To do anything else would have seemed perverse. Remember that, at that time, the RAN was much more closely aligned with the RN. The RAN had sent VAT Smith over to the UK to prosecute the case for what really amounted to buying a fleet air arm. The RN had all these squadron's lying around doing nothing with their identities intact and just needing re-commissioning. Why would they want to create more? It would have been seen as akin to not completing the Majestics and ordering the constriction of completely new hulls to the same design instead.
BTW there were differences between the squadrons in RN and RAN service - under the British system squadron's starting with an 8 were front line squadron's whilst those starting with 7 were second line. My father, who was part of the loan program of men and materials to the RAN in the 50s, tells of his disappointment on discovering that his posting to 851 was not to a front line squadron. As an aside I believe he and I were the first father and son to serve as aircrew officers on the same Australian naval air squadron. My claim to fame. - Nick Thorne talk 12:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well naval air squadrons are a bit schizophrenic. They are really just administrative arrangements but they also have an identity like any other naval unit such as a ship and is thought of that way. In other words a squadron's identity still exists even when it is not currently in commission. The idea of simply transferring squadron identities in this way would be entirely natural. To do anything else would have seemed perverse. Remember that, at that time, the RAN was much more closely aligned with the RN. The RAN had sent VAT Smith over to the UK to prosecute the case for what really amounted to buying a fleet air arm. The RN had all these squadron's lying around doing nothing with their identities intact and just needing re-commissioning. Why would they want to create more? It would have been seen as akin to not completing the Majestics and ordering the constriction of completely new hulls to the same design instead.
File Mover
I have granted the "file mover" permission to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. When you move a file please ensure that you change the links to the file to the new name. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- On another note, I can't believe how terribly the above template is written. It makes the admin sound like an asshole. I'm going to rewrite that. Anyway, yeah, I granted your request without hesitation but be sure to brush up on the relevant policies before using the tool if you need to! All the best. Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this (and for the policy link - I'll be sure to do my homework)! Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Italian Mare Nostrum
Hello
I noticed you made some editsd to this page recently. Just to let you know I have blanked it and redirected the title, for the reasons I've given here. I regret any trouble you may have gone to attempting to improve this POS article. The original author is (I believe the expression would be) a "shifty bastard". Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. No worries, thank you for the note I appreciate it. I probably should have realized it was a FORK. Anotherclown (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
File renaming
Hi, Re your edit to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, there's a bot that handles this - for Commons file names at least - so you may not need to do it manually. When I recently moved some files at Commons it took over 24 hours for the bot to run to update the articles they're used in, but the images looked OK until that time. I'm not sure if they were displaying correctly in this case given that the images are directly hosted on Wikipedia, but if they were you could let the software handle further moves :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Gday Nick - cheers for that. Actually the files were local ones so I don't think the bot handles them in this case (although I could be wrong). I appreciate you letting me know though re the bot doing it for Commons. Would be good if the bot also did it for local files as well! Anotherclown (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)