![]() | This page 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. |
Thanks for your contributions; you may wish to join the project! The members list is here. You get the free newsletter, a user box, and a wonderful sense of belonging :)))) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, 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:
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! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
Please accept the WikiChevrons in recognition of your excellent work on Australian military history articles. Nick-D ( talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |
The
February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment when you assessed the article for MILHIST. Am not sure what you mean as all statements are now referenced. Mjroots ( talk) 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems as if some members do truly care about the future of the WikiProject. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Great Articles about Australian Military History! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert - I have just sighted your start rating of the above article. As one of several editors who have worked on it over the years, I have no problems with the "lack of inline citations" assessment (I must get around to adding them); and the "absence of supporting material" ditto (when I master the complicated Wikipedia picture posting process there are a number of Victorian/Edwardian illustrations that could be used). However I wonder if you could clarify the negative rating for the "reasonably covers topic" category. If you could identify the ommissions or inaccuracies in the article as it stands I would be glad to try and remedy them.
Cheers Buistr ( talk) 07:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply
Hi, mate. No worries - by the way, the image policy is a hard one to work out. I've had serious trouble understanding it myself to the point that I hardly add any pictures for fear that they are a copyvio. Anyway, back on topic. There were no inaccuracies that I could find (I know very little about the regiment, so I couldn't really say if there were any at all). I found the article a very interesting subject, but it left me wanting more, hence the "reasonably covers topic" category. I will elaborate:
A further point about structure:
If you can get the citations added and a picture or two, or an infobox, and expand it a bit I think it could become a B class for sure. If you want an example of format that I've used (I'm certainly no guru, though - I've just used formats that others have shown me) - take a look at 2/6th Commando Squadron (Australia), or 2/6th Cavalry Commando Regiment (Australia). These might help - also you can use the coding for the infobox if you need it. I'm terrible with html so I end up copying it from other articles and adapting.
Hope this helps. Any questions, feel free to ask. AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Milhist Coordinator elections | |
I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you,
Abraham, B.S. (
talk)
01:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917. |
Happy to take a look, looks borderline at the moment. Thanks and if you have any further problems let me know.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I closed both of them. No need to delete as they should have been redirected to the correct talk pages. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The
March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
...for your comments at Wacław Micuta. I have added the requested citations. radek ( talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Airborne Warfare Barnstar | |
To AustralianRupert, for his extraordinarily hard work editing, maintaining and generally helping out on articles about airborne warfare. Skinny87 ( talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
Need help on how to review? I'll co-review one with you so you can learn :) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review Hastings Ismay, and make some good edits. I've consolidated the refs like you suggested. As per reviewing good articles, it's not hard, but I see above that someone's already offered to show you the ropes. Thanks again! Cool3 ( talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look at Battle of Slim River, i will definitely follow through with your suggestions over the next few days. You're doing great work on the reviewing mate, keep it up Aussie officer. Tristan benedict ( talk) 07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the Alexander Cavalié Mercer article. I notice you awarded it start-class against the Biography project rating criteria, but I can't see any comments as to why - it looks to me as if it rates a B-class, but I don't rate my own contributions; I'm surprised it didn't make C-class. Can you tell me why so I can improve it please? Thanks, Cyclopaedic ( talk) 10:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Great article. Glad to see this neglected conflict given greater treatment. It's a personal interest to me as my grandfather was wounded at the action at Landi Kotal on 11th May. NtheP ( talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I noted your comment on talk page of Tom Cecil Noel that you believe every paragraph of an article should have at least one cite. Is that a Wikipedia requirement or a personal preference as an editor?
I do grapple with placing citations. One of the problems I see is that I have been told to add inline cites only for Internet references, and simply list books at article's end. Naturally, that makes me wonder how you can check veracity of book references. I am uneasy with that approach (prob stems from my background as a military intelligence analyst).
I have been inserting cites in my articles every time I switch sources within an article. For an example, see Olivier Freiherr von Beaulieu-Marconnay.
At any rate, you do seem serious about citing, which isn't common enough among contributors.
Could you be tempted into writing bios of Australia's World War flying aces? Better yet, could you be lured into breaking out Australia's aces into a national list, as Trevor MacInnes has done for the Canadians with List of World War I aces from Canada?
Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
Thank you for tagging and assessing dozens of articles for the Military History WikiProject over the last few days while continuing to create excellent new articles. Nick-D ( talk) 11:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
I've just had a look at your user page; I wasn't aware that the ADM had clasps, but if it were to do so, I completely agree that "the Canberra clasp" (or perhaps even more appropriately, the "RMC", "ADC", "ADFA", "Russell" and "Campbell Park" clasps) would be hard won and highly prized!
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Does "Bungendore" qualify as a "Canberra clasp"?
Pdfpdf (
talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Damn! I forgot the "Fairbairn clasp". (And Deacon. And Harmon.) Yes, a single "Canberra clasp" (and bars) would be much simpler!
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your support over the File:Sdar2tn.jpg. Its deletion illustrates the shortcomings of wikipedia. Since I don't live in NZ I have no way of replacing the image. Quite sad really. Cheers Ozdaren ( talk) 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your assessment on Weesheet. While the comments were general, they were, by far, the most I have seen as far as general assessments go. Thanks and keep up the good work.-- IvoShandor ( talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll take the bait. What's a DTG? (And why would you want to put "that" into one?) Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For all you hard work, I have seen your name quite often on my watchlist correcting my errors , THANKS -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
Re 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. In the old version, clicking on ref 2 took the reader to [1]: "AWM Unit Information – 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Vietnam." with no links, forcing the reader to go look what this is. In the new version, clicking on ref 2 takes the reader to [2] where the reader gets the publisher, a link to the source document, and the accessdate.
When the lead and infobox is also reffed, and more references are provided to show notability, the old version's style reference section will have several entries, while the new style gives the reader the exact details to check the source.
When several pages from a source is used, the two footnotes/references sections can be used, where the footnote say AuthorSurname, Year (linked via the "ref" parameter in the cite template), page (using the page or pages parameter); the surname and year will be linked to the full details in the references section - pointing the reader with a link to the exact details to check the source; e.g. Rudolf Vrba#cite note-Bauer1994p157-41. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25 t14:22z
Hi mate,
I'm working on a few drafts at the moment:
which I am trying to hive off Military history of Australia and then reduce that article in size in prep for review (probably only B but my aim is a GA eventually).
These can be found at:
If your interested in doing a little work on these any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.
Anotherclown ( talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate,
I do have material that you asked. However, I would like to put forward my viewpoint. The Indians consider the Gorkhas to be indigenous; we don't count them as separate even though many soldiers are recuited from another country - Nepal. We have large populations of Gorkhas in Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and these people can be found all over India. We never shared the British view that Gurkhas were a different people from Indians. The Indian Government gives special and unique freedom to Nepalese nationals to enroll in our armed forces, besides of course enrolling Indian Gorkhas. Keeping this sensibility in mind, it would be inappropriate to club the post independence group Gurkha battle honours of Indian Army in your article. It may be more appropriate to club the post-1947 battle honours under the Brits instead. The Gorkha Regiments in the Indian Army are mostly treated identically as other infantry regiments except in a few personal 'A' matters such as leave, pay, pension rules etc. Gurkha VCs, Indian VCs or Gurkha battle honours, Indian battle honours - this is a dichotomy which is a British creation and viewpoint which they emphasised as part of their policy of 'Divide & Rule', not Indian. Keeping this in mind, I would recommend that the list of battle honours be ended at independence only as far as Indian regiments are concerned, as the concept of Gurkhas as not Indians effectively ended for us on that day. AshLin ( talk) 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've reviewed the article Australian Army Reserve for its nomination for Good Article status. I have found some fairrly major prose issues and some citation issues, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. During my review I alsonoted some items that I think will enhance the article if you wish to pursue higher assessments.My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the reviewor individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there.When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to re-evaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is curable; there are support groups. Signed: "Concerned" from Adelaide. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Inspired by the French Army in World War I article, I've created an Australian Army in World War II article. Nick-D ( talk) 11:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | |
Awarded to AustralianRupert to contributions to Australian military history, particularly the Military history of Australia during World War I. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to AustralianRupert by Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Epic Barnstar | |
for your work on Australian military history. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
Cheers, Bigger digger ( talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the check -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate. Despite the discussion on the talk page someone has changed the article to show the outcome as British minor tactical victory as opposed to Afghan strategic. NtheP ( talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your advice about the article. I will do whatever I can to improve it per your suggestions; any help would be appreciated. I am doing all that I can to find a picture. It is also now a DYK candidate here, and see my comment there re. media coverage. Thanks again, Chzz ► 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, hoping you can help. I created an entry for the Naval Battle of Han River (1951) yesterday but apparently it needs attention to its grammer. I've gone over it but don't really feel I can remove the pesky banner without stepping on peoples toes. Any chance you can take a look, make any quick changes you see and if you think its up to scratch remove the banner? If you think it needs more work before that can occur just let me know what you think I can do to improve it and I'll do it myself. Even with better grammer its always going to be Start class, but I would like to fix this at least. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for working on William Windsor (goat). Excellent work. Chzz ► 21:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and review. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, and I'll add that description ASAP. As for beingable to link the awards themselves some sort of listing, unfortunately no such listing exists for military officers that served 40+ years ago. Thanks for the sugestion though! Rapier1 ( talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi would you mind giving the British Army during World War I a once over I have been tinkering with it while waiting for the peer review for History of the United Kingdom in World War I to finish. I think its almost there but as ever a fresh pair of eyes would be appreciated and I have been impressed with your comments on other articles . -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to saying in my reply to your keep vote and that's probably my fault. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I know exactly what you were saying. If you reread my response again, I was basically saying that in essence, you were agreeing with the merge comments that the article was against policy, but because you like the article (click on the link), you think it should stay. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Appeal
A recent decision to retain or delete this content on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. |
Iqinn ( talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friend,
Sorry, really apologise, I will try and be more careful about that. I will try and learn how to just take care of the history section, since you and others are doinga fine job on the other aspects of the Gurkha page.
Again really apologise.
Sincerely
Gorkhali ( talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and guidance on the above page, but I think I'm spent now. I only thought this would be little more than a stub when I started it, but you know how these things snowball. I can't seem to find any more information from my sources, but I'll head back if I come across anything. Thanks again. FruitMonkey ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Goat Star | |
For contributions to
Caprinae
Solidarius Lance Corporal
William Windsor salutes you! |
The award is documented in
User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress
William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!
Chzz
►
22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Saw your request on Skinny's user page. Don't forget the London Gazette which will give more info on when he was commissioned and promoted, and the award of his DSO (search page here if you don't already know). David Underdown ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The
May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You have very quickly become very adept, and seem to be having great fun. Good stuff!
(Is it anything to do with those ice-cold winters in CBR, and the fact that winter is never a TV ratings period?)
Enjoy! Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. How's the campaign for the "Canberra" clasp for the
ADM progressing?)
Hello Rupert. Rather fast editing on the AATTV, as I just put the item in. I've included the remarks from the next of kin alongside your official history. The reason is that many years ago I interviewed a former officer of the team who had been recommended to me. In talking about the unit I mentioned the first death in the unit, WO Conroy. This gentleman told me of the Sgt, who he strongly implied had been done in by the South Vietnamese. (he had lots of other interesting stories of the non military business affairs of the LLDB).
I had never mentioned it, but found the next of kin's remarks worthy of consideration. Apparently nothing was released about it to my knowledge in 1993 when the thirty rule thing would have come up for release. Foofbun ( talk) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, your April 19 remarks about Beckhardt slipped past me until now. You might be interested to know that the article has grown since your comment.
You are entirely correct about needing citations in the article. However, grubbing up the history of a man whose history has been systematically erased was so difficult, I did not deal with citations at the time I wrote the article. I have returned to do so.
I must note a difference in our citation styles. I place a citation at the end of the information I gained from a source. That may be after half a dozen words, or half a dozen paragraphs, but you can always check me out because I add cites at the change of source.
Your "cite every para" rule would, in some cases, have me adding duplicate cites to no real purpose. I do try to insert my cites as I write; Beckhardt was an exception because he was such a head-bendingly difficult subject.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For your indefatigable work in keeping our project running smoothly with tagging, assessing and countless essential backroom tasks, I am delighted to award you this second bar to your Chevrons. Keep up the good work! Roger Davies talk 06:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
I cannot stress enough how disappointed I am to read an article from a serving officer in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) making reference to and making light of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a joke. On top of this you along with others have degraded an award on the Australian honours and awards list with no concern for what this award may mean to others. I would expect that this is not acceptable from a commissioned officer. If you aren’t prepared to stand in front of any unit in the defence force on a parade ground and publicly repeat what you have said on these pages it shouldn’t be said at all.
I know of families that hold the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) in high regard. The context for these families is that a loved one has died in the service of their country, this award is what they have in acknowledgement of this service and should not be degraded in this or anyway. I personally wear this medal with pride and am grateful my country has chosen to honour its defence personal in this way. Recently other countries have sort to use this award as an example to honour their defence service members both past and present.
To make a serious medical condition such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) the butt of a joke surely shows no respect for any soldier, sailor or airman that has had the misfortune to suffer this condition.
I simple say if you have no respect or see no value in the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) don’t wear it and pass judgement on the values of those who do. I also say never make a joke of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as those of us that have had to carry a wounded mate on a stretcher, making every attempt save their life think you have no right to do so.
Rememberthefallen (
talk)
08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI:
1) If you go to
User:Pdfpdf or
User talk:Pdfpdf, on the left side are four boxes (navigation, search, interaction and toolbox); in the toolbox box, the fifth entry is "
E-mail this user". You will notice that such an entry does not appear on your user pages. If you wish to enable it,
my preferences at the very top of the page displays a page which has an "E-mail options" box on it. (Don't forget to tick the "Enable e-mail from other users" box, like I did, and then wondered why it still wasn't working!)
2) Your unjustifiably indignant "friend" has made only
one edit, the one on this page. I'm always wary of such situations. Don't lose your sense of humour because someone makes vague anonymous unjustified hit-and-run accusations.
Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
17:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Rupert, would you take another look at the Cologne war, please? I've added more citations. I think it meets B scale now. thanks -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, AustralianRupert! I think you've assessed a couple of my mil. hist. biographies in the past few days, which is really cool. One question – exactly is the supporting materials criterion? Thanks, PasswordUsername ( talk) 06:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
Thanks for your contributions; you may wish to join the project! The members list is here. You get the free newsletter, a user box, and a wonderful sense of belonging :)))) -- ROGER DAVIES talk 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, 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:
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! -- ROGER DAVIES talk 10:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
Please accept the WikiChevrons in recognition of your excellent work on Australian military history articles. Nick-D ( talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |
The
February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment when you assessed the article for MILHIST. Am not sure what you mean as all statements are now referenced. Mjroots ( talk) 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please
vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems as if some members do truly care about the future of the WikiProject. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Great Articles about Australian Military History! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert - I have just sighted your start rating of the above article. As one of several editors who have worked on it over the years, I have no problems with the "lack of inline citations" assessment (I must get around to adding them); and the "absence of supporting material" ditto (when I master the complicated Wikipedia picture posting process there are a number of Victorian/Edwardian illustrations that could be used). However I wonder if you could clarify the negative rating for the "reasonably covers topic" category. If you could identify the ommissions or inaccuracies in the article as it stands I would be glad to try and remedy them.
Cheers Buistr ( talk) 07:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply
Hi, mate. No worries - by the way, the image policy is a hard one to work out. I've had serious trouble understanding it myself to the point that I hardly add any pictures for fear that they are a copyvio. Anyway, back on topic. There were no inaccuracies that I could find (I know very little about the regiment, so I couldn't really say if there were any at all). I found the article a very interesting subject, but it left me wanting more, hence the "reasonably covers topic" category. I will elaborate:
A further point about structure:
If you can get the citations added and a picture or two, or an infobox, and expand it a bit I think it could become a B class for sure. If you want an example of format that I've used (I'm certainly no guru, though - I've just used formats that others have shown me) - take a look at 2/6th Commando Squadron (Australia), or 2/6th Cavalry Commando Regiment (Australia). These might help - also you can use the coding for the infobox if you need it. I'm terrible with html so I end up copying it from other articles and adapting.
Hope this helps. Any questions, feel free to ask. AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Milhist Coordinator elections | |
I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you,
Abraham, B.S. (
talk)
01:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917. |
Happy to take a look, looks borderline at the moment. Thanks and if you have any further problems let me know.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I closed both of them. No need to delete as they should have been redirected to the correct talk pages. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The
March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
...for your comments at Wacław Micuta. I have added the requested citations. radek ( talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Airborne Warfare Barnstar | |
To AustralianRupert, for his extraordinarily hard work editing, maintaining and generally helping out on articles about airborne warfare. Skinny87 ( talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
Need help on how to review? I'll co-review one with you so you can learn :) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review Hastings Ismay, and make some good edits. I've consolidated the refs like you suggested. As per reviewing good articles, it's not hard, but I see above that someone's already offered to show you the ropes. Thanks again! Cool3 ( talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look at Battle of Slim River, i will definitely follow through with your suggestions over the next few days. You're doing great work on the reviewing mate, keep it up Aussie officer. Tristan benedict ( talk) 07:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the Alexander Cavalié Mercer article. I notice you awarded it start-class against the Biography project rating criteria, but I can't see any comments as to why - it looks to me as if it rates a B-class, but I don't rate my own contributions; I'm surprised it didn't make C-class. Can you tell me why so I can improve it please? Thanks, Cyclopaedic ( talk) 10:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Great article. Glad to see this neglected conflict given greater treatment. It's a personal interest to me as my grandfather was wounded at the action at Landi Kotal on 11th May. NtheP ( talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I noted your comment on talk page of Tom Cecil Noel that you believe every paragraph of an article should have at least one cite. Is that a Wikipedia requirement or a personal preference as an editor?
I do grapple with placing citations. One of the problems I see is that I have been told to add inline cites only for Internet references, and simply list books at article's end. Naturally, that makes me wonder how you can check veracity of book references. I am uneasy with that approach (prob stems from my background as a military intelligence analyst).
I have been inserting cites in my articles every time I switch sources within an article. For an example, see Olivier Freiherr von Beaulieu-Marconnay.
At any rate, you do seem serious about citing, which isn't common enough among contributors.
Could you be tempted into writing bios of Australia's World War flying aces? Better yet, could you be lured into breaking out Australia's aces into a national list, as Trevor MacInnes has done for the Canadians with List of World War I aces from Canada?
Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
Thank you for tagging and assessing dozens of articles for the Military History WikiProject over the last few days while continuing to create excellent new articles. Nick-D ( talk) 11:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
I've just had a look at your user page; I wasn't aware that the ADM had clasps, but if it were to do so, I completely agree that "the Canberra clasp" (or perhaps even more appropriately, the "RMC", "ADC", "ADFA", "Russell" and "Campbell Park" clasps) would be hard won and highly prized!
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Does "Bungendore" qualify as a "Canberra clasp"?
Pdfpdf (
talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Damn! I forgot the "Fairbairn clasp". (And Deacon. And Harmon.) Yes, a single "Canberra clasp" (and bars) would be much simpler!
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your support over the File:Sdar2tn.jpg. Its deletion illustrates the shortcomings of wikipedia. Since I don't live in NZ I have no way of replacing the image. Quite sad really. Cheers Ozdaren ( talk) 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your assessment on Weesheet. While the comments were general, they were, by far, the most I have seen as far as general assessments go. Thanks and keep up the good work.-- IvoShandor ( talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll take the bait. What's a DTG? (And why would you want to put "that" into one?) Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For all you hard work, I have seen your name quite often on my watchlist correcting my errors , THANKS -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
Re 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. In the old version, clicking on ref 2 took the reader to [1]: "AWM Unit Information – 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Vietnam." with no links, forcing the reader to go look what this is. In the new version, clicking on ref 2 takes the reader to [2] where the reader gets the publisher, a link to the source document, and the accessdate.
When the lead and infobox is also reffed, and more references are provided to show notability, the old version's style reference section will have several entries, while the new style gives the reader the exact details to check the source.
When several pages from a source is used, the two footnotes/references sections can be used, where the footnote say AuthorSurname, Year (linked via the "ref" parameter in the cite template), page (using the page or pages parameter); the surname and year will be linked to the full details in the references section - pointing the reader with a link to the exact details to check the source; e.g. Rudolf Vrba#cite note-Bauer1994p157-41. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25 t14:22z
Hi mate,
I'm working on a few drafts at the moment:
which I am trying to hive off Military history of Australia and then reduce that article in size in prep for review (probably only B but my aim is a GA eventually).
These can be found at:
If your interested in doing a little work on these any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.
Anotherclown ( talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate,
I do have material that you asked. However, I would like to put forward my viewpoint. The Indians consider the Gorkhas to be indigenous; we don't count them as separate even though many soldiers are recuited from another country - Nepal. We have large populations of Gorkhas in Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and these people can be found all over India. We never shared the British view that Gurkhas were a different people from Indians. The Indian Government gives special and unique freedom to Nepalese nationals to enroll in our armed forces, besides of course enrolling Indian Gorkhas. Keeping this sensibility in mind, it would be inappropriate to club the post independence group Gurkha battle honours of Indian Army in your article. It may be more appropriate to club the post-1947 battle honours under the Brits instead. The Gorkha Regiments in the Indian Army are mostly treated identically as other infantry regiments except in a few personal 'A' matters such as leave, pay, pension rules etc. Gurkha VCs, Indian VCs or Gurkha battle honours, Indian battle honours - this is a dichotomy which is a British creation and viewpoint which they emphasised as part of their policy of 'Divide & Rule', not Indian. Keeping this in mind, I would recommend that the list of battle honours be ended at independence only as far as Indian regiments are concerned, as the concept of Gurkhas as not Indians effectively ended for us on that day. AshLin ( talk) 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've reviewed the article Australian Army Reserve for its nomination for Good Article status. I have found some fairrly major prose issues and some citation issues, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. During my review I alsonoted some items that I think will enhance the article if you wish to pursue higher assessments.My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the reviewor individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there.When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to re-evaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla ( talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The
April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is curable; there are support groups. Signed: "Concerned" from Adelaide. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Inspired by the French Army in World War I article, I've created an Australian Army in World War II article. Nick-D ( talk) 11:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Australian Barnstar of National Merit | |
Awarded to AustralianRupert to contributions to Australian military history, particularly the Military history of Australia during World War I. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to AustralianRupert by Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Epic Barnstar | |
for your work on Australian military history. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
Cheers, Bigger digger ( talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the check -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate. Despite the discussion on the talk page someone has changed the article to show the outcome as British minor tactical victory as opposed to Afghan strategic. NtheP ( talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your advice about the article. I will do whatever I can to improve it per your suggestions; any help would be appreciated. I am doing all that I can to find a picture. It is also now a DYK candidate here, and see my comment there re. media coverage. Thanks again, Chzz ► 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, hoping you can help. I created an entry for the Naval Battle of Han River (1951) yesterday but apparently it needs attention to its grammer. I've gone over it but don't really feel I can remove the pesky banner without stepping on peoples toes. Any chance you can take a look, make any quick changes you see and if you think its up to scratch remove the banner? If you think it needs more work before that can occur just let me know what you think I can do to improve it and I'll do it myself. Even with better grammer its always going to be Start class, but I would like to fix this at least. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown ( talk) 21:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for working on William Windsor (goat). Excellent work. Chzz ► 21:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and review. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, and I'll add that description ASAP. As for beingable to link the awards themselves some sort of listing, unfortunately no such listing exists for military officers that served 40+ years ago. Thanks for the sugestion though! Rapier1 ( talk) 01:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi would you mind giving the British Army during World War I a once over I have been tinkering with it while waiting for the peer review for History of the United Kingdom in World War I to finish. I think its almost there but as ever a fresh pair of eyes would be appreciated and I have been impressed with your comments on other articles . -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to saying in my reply to your keep vote and that's probably my fault. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I know exactly what you were saying. If you reread my response again, I was basically saying that in essence, you were agreeing with the merge comments that the article was against policy, but because you like the article (click on the link), you think it should stay. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Appeal
A recent decision to retain or delete this content on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. |
Iqinn ( talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friend,
Sorry, really apologise, I will try and be more careful about that. I will try and learn how to just take care of the history section, since you and others are doinga fine job on the other aspects of the Gurkha page.
Again really apologise.
Sincerely
Gorkhali ( talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and guidance on the above page, but I think I'm spent now. I only thought this would be little more than a stub when I started it, but you know how these things snowball. I can't seem to find any more information from my sources, but I'll head back if I come across anything. Thanks again. FruitMonkey ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Goat Star | |
For contributions to
Caprinae
Solidarius Lance Corporal
William Windsor salutes you! |
The award is documented in
User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress
William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!
Chzz
►
22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Saw your request on Skinny's user page. Don't forget the London Gazette which will give more info on when he was commissioned and promoted, and the award of his DSO (search page here if you don't already know). David Underdown ( talk) 10:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The
May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You have very quickly become very adept, and seem to be having great fun. Good stuff!
(Is it anything to do with those ice-cold winters in CBR, and the fact that winter is never a TV ratings period?)
Enjoy! Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. How's the campaign for the "Canberra" clasp for the
ADM progressing?)
Hello Rupert. Rather fast editing on the AATTV, as I just put the item in. I've included the remarks from the next of kin alongside your official history. The reason is that many years ago I interviewed a former officer of the team who had been recommended to me. In talking about the unit I mentioned the first death in the unit, WO Conroy. This gentleman told me of the Sgt, who he strongly implied had been done in by the South Vietnamese. (he had lots of other interesting stories of the non military business affairs of the LLDB).
I had never mentioned it, but found the next of kin's remarks worthy of consideration. Apparently nothing was released about it to my knowledge in 1993 when the thirty rule thing would have come up for release. Foofbun ( talk) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, your April 19 remarks about Beckhardt slipped past me until now. You might be interested to know that the article has grown since your comment.
You are entirely correct about needing citations in the article. However, grubbing up the history of a man whose history has been systematically erased was so difficult, I did not deal with citations at the time I wrote the article. I have returned to do so.
I must note a difference in our citation styles. I place a citation at the end of the information I gained from a source. That may be after half a dozen words, or half a dozen paragraphs, but you can always check me out because I add cites at the change of source.
Your "cite every para" rule would, in some cases, have me adding duplicate cites to no real purpose. I do try to insert my cites as I write; Beckhardt was an exception because he was such a head-bendingly difficult subject.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For your indefatigable work in keeping our project running smoothly with tagging, assessing and countless essential backroom tasks, I am delighted to award you this second bar to your Chevrons. Keep up the good work! Roger Davies talk 06:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
I cannot stress enough how disappointed I am to read an article from a serving officer in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) making reference to and making light of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a joke. On top of this you along with others have degraded an award on the Australian honours and awards list with no concern for what this award may mean to others. I would expect that this is not acceptable from a commissioned officer. If you aren’t prepared to stand in front of any unit in the defence force on a parade ground and publicly repeat what you have said on these pages it shouldn’t be said at all.
I know of families that hold the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) in high regard. The context for these families is that a loved one has died in the service of their country, this award is what they have in acknowledgement of this service and should not be degraded in this or anyway. I personally wear this medal with pride and am grateful my country has chosen to honour its defence personal in this way. Recently other countries have sort to use this award as an example to honour their defence service members both past and present.
To make a serious medical condition such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) the butt of a joke surely shows no respect for any soldier, sailor or airman that has had the misfortune to suffer this condition.
I simple say if you have no respect or see no value in the Australian Defence Medal (ADM) don’t wear it and pass judgement on the values of those who do. I also say never make a joke of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as those of us that have had to carry a wounded mate on a stretcher, making every attempt save their life think you have no right to do so.
Rememberthefallen (
talk)
08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI:
1) If you go to
User:Pdfpdf or
User talk:Pdfpdf, on the left side are four boxes (navigation, search, interaction and toolbox); in the toolbox box, the fifth entry is "
E-mail this user". You will notice that such an entry does not appear on your user pages. If you wish to enable it,
my preferences at the very top of the page displays a page which has an "E-mail options" box on it. (Don't forget to tick the "Enable e-mail from other users" box, like I did, and then wondered why it still wasn't working!)
2) Your unjustifiably indignant "friend" has made only
one edit, the one on this page. I'm always wary of such situations. Don't lose your sense of humour because someone makes vague anonymous unjustified hit-and-run accusations.
Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
17:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Rupert, would you take another look at the Cologne war, please? I've added more citations. I think it meets B scale now. thanks -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, AustralianRupert! I think you've assessed a couple of my mil. hist. biographies in the past few days, which is really cool. One question – exactly is the supporting materials criterion? Thanks, PasswordUsername ( talk) 06:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |