User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 2

3192:. As such if there is significant coverage of the person, then a Silver Star recipient may well warrant inclusion, however, without this then they possibly don't. This is different to whether or not they are deserving of respect as soldiers or as human beings. I think most of the members in the military history project have the appropriate respect for Silver Star recipients and indeed all those that serve whether they receive higher level awards or not, however, a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. In regards to the two current AFDs relating to Silver Star recipients, I've decided to stay out of the debate. In this case it is difficult to know what is the right answer. I used to vote keep for SS recipients, but the project concensus was against this. I can see that in some regards the two ladies have significant coverage (although a lot of it seems like it is probably just news media) and the claims are somewhat unique. However, they are just as deserving as any other Silver Star recipient, so when do we say that a "first" is no longer notable in terms of determining automatic inclusion? For example the first female to receive a Silver Star (Mary Roberts) might be notable, but is the fifth (Hestier) and sixth (Brown)? (It is perhaps a stretch to say they are notable because a long time has passed since the fourth (WWII 1944) and fifth (Iraq 2005)). Also is the first female to receive an Army Commendation Medal notable? When do we say that a "first" is not notable, it is just that somone had to be the first. Also when is something considered to be 6021:

cancelled only seems to be covered in the lead, however it should be mentioned in both the lead (briefly) and in more detail in the article's body. Specifically, information that should be included in the Construction section should include how far along she was towards completion (75.9% is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else), when she was launched, was it commissioned, why was it called Washington (mentioned in lead, but not elsewhere), etc? Also, some background information about why the ship was being built (other than just the block quote), e.g. the First World War had ended, so why did the US decide they needed more ships? Also background infomation about the naval limitation treaty would help provide understanding to the reader. Finally, in the Construction section the date for the Act of Congress doesn't seem correct: "3 August 1886". Is this correct, the quote mentions "nineteen nineteen"? If it is correct, the 33 year gap should be explained. —

5145:

feel you were making more of the contribution than deserved (although I think it is a decent article). I can fully understand your reluctance as a new editor, though. I'd recommend it as the next step with the article, but only if you were wanting to take it to a higher assessment than B class. Such higher assessments would be GA, A or FA, which require a formalised process to be undertaken and are more stringent than a B class assessment. Perhaps if you take a look at some of the other articles listed in the peer review section, and see what comments they've elicited, that might help you decide whether or not it is something you wish to undertake. If you decide that you don't wish to do so, there are many more stubs or start-class articles on Knowledge that you might like to consider working. You can find similar articles to the one you've worked on by clicking through the categories on the bottom of the article. Also the Military history project has 48

674:

assessing it, particularly as at the time there was a large backlog of unassessed articles. I am sorry if it has offended you to have it assessed as a Start class article, however, that is what it currently is as its coverage is not complete for the topic. If I 'unassess' it, the article will automatically return to the unassessed category and someone else will probably come along and assess it, thus leading to the same situation. As such I do not feel that it is best practice to remove the assessment. If you feel strongly enough about it, I don't have an issue with you removing it, however, that probably wouldn't stop the article being assessed later by someone else and as such I feel it would be counterproductive.

974:

anything that you are going to work on in the month, even if you think you will only take it from a stub to a start, there is no need to wait for them to go to GA or FL. I tend to submit when it is at a start and then aim for a B that way it is more likely to have been reassessed within the month. If you wait for GA that can take a long time, so it might not get re-assessed in the time period so even though you worked it up to a very good standard it might still not score well at contest. That's my understanding, of course, and I'm still new at the contest so I might have it a bit wrong, not sure.

4135:

source that the Army used to teach officers about the SWPA campaigns. (Indeed, it was still being discussed when I was at Duntroon only a couple of years ago.) Brune's work is more recent, however, so he may have had access to more sources and possibly maybe did not feel bound to spare the reader's sensibilities about such issues (just thinking out loud - I've not read the Brune book, so I don't really know much about it as a source). To be honest, many of the sources seem to contradict each other on some very significant points. What do you think is the best solution? —

980:

of the month, make sure you ask someone to assess them all for you. I'd be happy to take a look at some if I'm not busy at the time and as I'm not going to have many articles in the contest this month (max probably three articles), I've got no chance of winning so I can be objective. Of course, though, pretty much everyone who enters the contest is very good about it and will give you an honest assessment even if it means you will win. Afterall it is not about winning the contest, it is about improving the project. Anyway, good luck and take care. —

6477:

maintain an official list, so I would think that maybe US Navy ships might do so also.) I have no naval experience, but from my time in the Army, I know that many officers act in roles that they don't officially hold, and they will not usually be included on lists of officers appointed to that position. My suggestion is to post a query on the main mil hist talk page and ask for people with maritime knowledge to determine the answer to this one. However, once that is sorted out, I'm sure it can be assessed as a B class. —

4763: 2909: 2878: 2847: 2791: 2755: 2724: 7412: 31: 3247:

rehashing it, but if not I will. I also tend to link Major general and lieutenant colonel and so forth, though again I get the heebie-jeebies because of course these may not have the same sense from then as for now. I kinda trust readers to decide if it makes any sense. For the same reason, I have not linked for example Austrian Army or Turkish Army cos they will tell you about the modern Austrian or Turkish armies which is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition.

4247: 2829: 995:

finish those to some degree in the next couple of weeks. The GLC's will probably go to the end of the month as well the the WWI list but the new articles and the Brevet Medal list I should have done rather soon. All the ones I put down there are either at GA, FLC or articles I need for a list. I have already started cleansing another batch to submit for various things (GA and FLC mostly). Heres the ones I will be submitting this month but still need some work,

6930: 3491:

Victoria Cross and in the end received nothing (all I could find in the Honours and Awards database was a 15 year long service medal, much later). Strange. Anyway, of course the prod is not a comment on the achievement of Sergeant Burr—which does indeed sound to me like something worthy of higher recognition—but more just trying to support the project's concensus. Indeed, I kind of found it painful to do, and may not prod again! Anyway, take care. —

5777: 5296: 4285: 2943: 2314: 2155: 1991: 1861: 1806: 1214: 6199: 4838: 4958:

opinions. If no one responds after a few days, just be bold and add them in. That's my take, anyway. I'd only do this for articles that are B class or beyond, if its Start class and there is no clear main contributor (or little recent activity on the article), it would normally be fairly non controversial just to be bold and make the changes without notification. Cheers. Keep up the good work! —

7206: 4341:

at that time. Off the top of my head, I think Millar does says something about this somewhere. Dayton McCarthy's ADFA thesis (which is now a book) might also. Most of my sources for the article belong to a mate and he's currently serving overseas, so it will probably have to wait until he gets back. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a good one. Cheers. —

2436:

more information is added, but currently they are mainly just the official citations by themselves and as they relate to awards below the MOH, they are therefore not automatically notable. I am sort of hoping that they might be improved so they don't have to be deleted and I'd help if I could, but obviously don't have the sources (and I suspect that they don't exist). —

1958: 6590:. It looks great and hope not too many more come. I know its a drive by Wiki, but as you indicated, when an article is based on one or two sources they can sometimes accidentally become too close to the original source. And sometimes as an individual you may only have those sources and hope that others who have more sources add to the articles. I owe you one. Cam. ( 4171:

circled but despite a "severe verbal exchange" between Lovett and the pilot the pilots refused to land because they were worried the Japanese would attack while they were on the ground (pages 102-103 of Brunes book). That Australians in control of the field was visable to the pilots, along with the verbal exchange seems to indicate no order to return was issued.

1510:, which is a GA (and one I didn't work on). I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, so the banner can stay if you feel it necessary, but I won't be doing any work to change it. Also, I would suggest you put a message on the Military History talk page if you are considering adding this banner to other articles that you feel you don't like the style of. — 6687:, Volume 23, Issue 89 (1972), Military Historical Society (United Kingdom), has an article on the 27th Battalion, RSAR. Its not fully available on google books and the snippet view is tantalizingly close to giving us the answers (says something about 1 July) but not a year. I can't find a copy anywhere, maybe you could have more luck. From my research to date I 3430: 1570:, where you're repeatedly referring to different pages of the same book(s), the citations would look horrible if you gave the full detials of the book every single time. On the issue of sourcing though, in terms of ], you'll probably be better off replacing a lot of the references to the unithistories site by going directly to the 6425:

some editors have decided just to stay away from the topics altogether as Knowledge is supposed to be a fun experience. Of course, none of this helps you with your issue. My advice would be to leave a message on the main Military history talk page asking for input from interested/knowledgable editors. It can be found here:

2252:. There is a permanent debate in which pages this template should be placed. Certainly not in all of them. Mainly pages that have hi traffic or the are the targets of a lot of off topic comments are supposed to have this template. I know its name is a bit confusing. Have a nice day/night and happy editing! -- 6955: 4043:(the layman doesn't have the Battlebook...)? I've made a view attempts at making some maps myself for some of the Bougainville campaign battles I've written about and failed miserably. Never was any good a map marking. Unfortunately I have "...a complete lack of artistic talent..." (Dargen 2008, np) — 7048:

Hi, Jim. I've expanded the article a little. The Steamroller Farm action is listed on the website you provide as 26/27 Feb 1943, which Saunders seems to refer to on p. 125. He doesn't call it Steamroller Farm, though, but I've mentioned it briefly. The description seems a little bit at odds with that

6424:

Unfortunately, articles about Indian and Pakistani topics have a tendency to attract editors with a non neutral point of view and to result in edit wars. In my own experience attempts at moderating these edit wars often end in the neutral editor being accused of bias themselves. As a result, I think,

6248:

Hi, mate. I will have a look but I don't think I'll be much use. I'll be limited to net sources and from the search I just did most of them are not really reliable. Anyway, take care with your own RL commitments. BTW, if I ever come across Colonel R again I'm going to give them a piece of my mind and

5144:

Hi, no worries. Peer review is open for everyone and any article can be submitted to it (stubs all the way through to Featured articles). It is just a forum where you ask what others in the project think of an article and how it might be improved further. Certainly, I wouldn't think that anyone would

4340:

Thanks for that feedback, Peter. I'm considering reworking the article sometime with a view to taking it to a higher assessment (but currently very busy unfortunately), so will certainly try to incorporate this information if I can. I'd imagine that your experience was very similar to many who served

4151:

It's quite possible that Owen was told that Morris ordered the return as this would avoid some issues that could affect morale. I have Brunes book so I'll check the source he used for that claim. I recommend you get it as it is impeccably researched with 46 pages dedicated to listing his sources with

3972:

Hi, Tom. Thanks very much for the vote of confidence. It is certainly something I've considered, but I'm not sure that I could give it my all at the moment, though. I've just gone back to uni after being discharged from the Army due to my hip injury, so life is pretty hectic at the moment. I'll still

3914:

offline at the moment. Currently it only discusses World War I, but I'm expanding to include more detail, interwar years and World War II. I'm trying to write all the predecessor units of the currently existing Reserve infantry battalions. So 7th Bn links in with 8th/7th RVR. I've got the WWI history

3490:

Yes, indeed I believe that you are correct on this one. Slightly off topic, a little while back I read an account of a young Australian officer (I forget the man's name now, which is much to my discredit) in Vietnam singlehandedly destroying a number of Viet Cong bunkers with 66s. He was nommed for a

3298:

and all the articles use that. A bit of a mouthful I know, but I am not happy with a few of the flags, but at least then once we get consensus it only has to be changed in one place. Russia is a bit iffy because it is the Imperial flag of 1914-1918, Croatia is the modern flag which must be wrong, and

2994:

Hi mate, thanks for that. What you've done is fine. It needed a good edit. Thanks for the review too. I will look at what I can do about the map. Map drawing was my worst subject at Duntroon, though, so I can't promise much. I'm not sure about the copyright status of the maps in the official history,

1965:

Cheers for that. I'm not really a regular aviation contributor, though. I sometimes get involved in military aviation biographies through the Military History project, but probably not really enough to get involved in the contest. Looks like a good idea, though. I like how you've included a number of

1685:

Yeah, unfortunately nothing in my sources about Foxforce that I can find, unfortunately. The St George Saunders book might have something, but for some reason he hasn't included an index, so it makes life difficult. I've ordered a couple of books, which might have something but they won't arrive for

973:

Hi, mate, I believe that you can submit as many as you want in one block (although you need to make sure that they have the appropriate mark up so that you can get the credit for them (by this I mean * {{la|Article name}} (Beginning class) ~~~~ for each individual article). You can pretty much submit

947:

Yes, DYK can be a bit of a pain in the butt. It is nice to get recognised and have an article you have worked on on the mainpage, but it can be annoying to get there sometimes. I remember I nearly missed out on having a DYK once due to an editor claiming large proportions of the article I created was

563:

No worries, George. I will try to help out where I can. I don't have much sources on aces, though, so I will probably be limited to formatting, etc. The Ball article is looking good, but A Class articles go through a review and need at least three other editors to support, so sometimes the process is

6715:

When I view that Bulletin article it says "July 1st, 1965, the regiment was renumbered the 10th Battalion, Royal South Australian Regiment" (but it cuts off there). That could imply that 1 RSAR became 10 RSAR and 27th was split from that later, but it could also be going to say that 1 RSAR became 10

5129:

Thank you very much. I do appreciate your patience. As a novice at this, I hope you will indulge me a question. Is peer review something that I should do? Or would it be making more of my modest contribution than it deserves? Feel free to be as candid as you think necessary. I respect your opiniion.

4646:

Hi, Jim. Thanks. Regarding the template, I'm not sure why but for some reason I can't get it to collapse on the individual articles. I've tried adding "state=collapse" to the template as it appears on the individual articles, but that doesn't seem to work. It works if I add it to the actual template

4597:

That's great work. I just saw that you created Bonis Peninsula a little while ago too. I've linked that in one of the battle articles now, too. I've been thinking about creating stubs for the locations in the articles for a while, but don't really have any information. I'm hoping to complete all the

3895:

offline (1RAR and US 1st Brigade Feb 1966). Got a bit done so far this weekend and hope to chop out something by tomorrow night or early next week. It will only be a modest B at best but I think I can hack something out. Not sure if I could be bothered with a DKY this time (probably nothing all that

3223:

No wories at all, happy to help where I can. In regards to your question about the map, I couldn't get that file to load for some reason to view what you are viewing so I'm not quite sure of what you are trying to achieve. Sorry. Anyway, some basic advice that might help: if you are using an obscure

2435:

Hi, Skinny. I found a few more that had been prodded and have added them to the list. To be honest, I hate doing this because many of the subjects are posthumous recipients, but at the end of the day it is not fair to users if the rules are not evenly enforced. Some of the subjects may be notable if

2268:

Okay, thanks. While I disagree with the reasoning, I'll stop adding them then as I'm not one to go against concensus. I would like to say, though, that it seems like just another example of how something one would assume would be non-controversial is made controversial by the wiki community. How are

2099:

Hi, George. The move is pretty much done. Sitting in the hotel right now cooling my heels, so to speak (they put us up for a couple of days in Canberra before we leave, but I have to go back to the house tomorrow to make sure the removalists have done their job). No hard feelings at all. People have

1738:

Could eb, perhpas we just need a round-up article to cover any of the various commando/special forces/raiding groups taht had shortlived existences, but not long enough to make an article on each of them individually stand-up? Ah well, back to keeping an eye on teh cricket score, looking like a bit

652:

Hi, can you please specify the article that you are refering to? There has been a large back log of unassessed mil hist articles, and I have asssessed a number over the past few days, so you need to be specific about which one you are talking about. I would like to point out that there is no need to

95:

Okay, I think that makes sense, although technically it is a misunderstanding of the conceptual differences in what a 'regiment' actually is, i.e. in armoured units a regiment means the same as infantry battalion, whereas an infantry regiment is more a ceremonial creation rather than a command unit.

7135:

Hi, mate, good question. The way I'd do this is create a disambiguation page called "Battle of Urumqi" which links to the two articles. I would then name the two articles: "First Battle of Urumqi (1933)" and then "Second Battle of Urumqi (1933–34)". For an example of a similar issue, take a look at

5163:

Excellent advice. Let me look around at some other articles (and accompanying comments)and get a better feel for the terrain. I can make a better decision if I know a little more about the process. Regardless of my ultimate decision, I can honestly say that it has been a pleasant labor so far, made

4134:

Hi, Wayne. I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure how to handle this one, though. Perhaps a footnote stating that there is a discrepancy between the sources and discussing what the alternate view is? Keogh's work I believe is considered to be reasonably reliable and it was for a long time the

4042:

Sure, I'll take a look. Had a quick glance and I'm pretty impressed with the map. The green might be a bit bright as Nick says. It seems to stand out on the page, so if it could be toned down a little. I wonder also with the legend, could the mil symbols be explained as you've done with the colours

2082:

as I will be relocating my family from Canberra to Brisbane next week, so will have to focus on that/them for a while. Army does most of the work, but still it is a busy time. I'll probably get back into things at a reduced capacity at the end of September once we start to get settled. Take care. —

2081:

Hi, George. If you mention all that on the talk page (as you have done), it can probably be accepted on good faith. My policy is usually to overcite, but that's my preference. I'm going to take a break from assessing and most other wikiwork for a while anyway. Things will be busy in real life soon,

1780:

Wow, I actually didn't know that. I guess that is the definition of "soft power" after all! What if they were to stop production, the country would be on its knees in a week! I jest, of course, but it is also sort of serious. In many regards the "defeated" powers from the Second World War have done

1309:

Hi, mate. Just had a look then. I think its possible, but to be honest I don't know much about the topic so I would be limited to only helping with some style and copy edit work. I think it is an interesting idea and a nice idea. There seems some resistance to the idea, though. I am going to try to

1080:

Hi guys. I hope youse don't mind me butting in, but I just wanted to say that if you create an article and it is rated Stub, for instance, on the talk page but have bought it up to a B-Class level, you do not have to have it assessed as B-Class before the contest reviewer goes through at the end of

979:

Looks like you've got a lot on your plate by the looks of all the entries in the contest. A good strategy might be to aim to get all the new ones to a B class (hence getting you 6 points for each). If you can do that, I'd say you might get a placing (1st, 2nd or 3rd). When it comes close to the end

6551:

Hi, Newm30. Quite busy at the moment, but I shouldn't complain. My advice is to go back through the sources and see where the article paraphrases them, then try to rewrite those sections. Unfortunately, sometimes when an article is based on one or two sources they can sometimes accidentally become

5882:

It is not in your link above, but I had a look at the uni catalogue and I'd be keen to look at "Bougainville 1942-1945 : Australians in the Pacific War" call number # 940.5426592 BOU 2005 if it was possible. It is 67 pages, though, so it might be a bit too much. But I'd certainly appreciate your

4554:

I think that a line in the prose should/could be added to the 10th Div article to include the 34th Bde. Then the "See also" section could be removed and thus it would make sense why it was being linked. Just had a look at the List of ships assigned to the Australia Station. Lots of redlinks there;

3512:

No worries, Suro. I hope I didn't step on your toes with tagging it. I put the tag on it because I felt that at least that way it might get some traffic within the Mil hist project. That will either mean that the article/list might get improved, or concensus might be built up about what to do with

1357:

He's usually pretty busy as his unit is pretty full on at the moment, and the GAR/ACR process can be quite long so I think that that is why he might be reluctant. Plus in some regards it is sometimes a bit subjective about what passes at those levels. Christmas stand-down might be a good time, but

673:

Hi, I certainly did not mean to lower the morale of anyone in assessing the article. Indeed, when assessing it I understood that it was still underconstruction, but felt that as it had been sitting in the unassessed category for quite a while and that I would be helping the mil hist project out in

198:

Hi, mate. No, any errors are my own. Apologies for any mistakes. I am by no means an expert on the background of the Vietnam War. My hope was and is to get people interested in fixing the article up. I added the background section in quickly because I felt that the article was missing something. I

4614:

Hmm, yes I've been wondering about this myself. Some of the battles are perhaps not notable enough in the scheme of things to have separate articles. Perhaps the best way would be to expand the parent Bougainville campaign article to include a little bit on each of the main engagements, including

4404:

Hi, SpoolWhippets. I've taken a bit of a look. It does unbalance the article a bit, but probably not too much. (If the Bougainville campaign can be expanded it would probably fix this issue.) My suggestion is finish writing it how you've set out to, put it up for a peer review and then once it is

4359:

Just to jump in, I've read scholarly books by historians which say exactly the same thing as Peter's very interesting post above. I think that Albert Palazzo's excellent book on the Australian Army's structure might have been one of them and I imagine that this is covered in the book David Horner

4170:

Found it. An interview with Major Bidstrup, 39th Battalion. According to Bidstrup he was on one of the transports along with Lieut. Lovett, the Battalions Adjutant, and the second platoon of D company. He details how he could see the Australians clearing the airstrip to allow them to land as they

6476:

It looks very good, however, I note that there is another user on the talk page with concerns about the inclusion of Kenworthy. Unless Kenworthy is listed as an official commanding officer, I don't feel he should be on the list. (Is there an official list of COs anywhere? Aust Army units usually

5450:

Hi, YellowMonkey. I've added some comments. Not sure if it is exactly what is required, but I don't really have much knowledge of the topic. The article seems quite good to me, although there are quite a few places where I feel a citation is needed (although I do tend to over cite, so maybe I am

994:

Thanks for the advice, to be honest i don't really care about all the merit badges but I figure if I am going to do them anyway I might as well put a card in the hat too. This might shock you but I was rather conservative in what I put down so I don't look like an @$ $ . In all liklihood I will

848:

Hi again. Yes, I will be happy to reassess when you're ready. It is close to a B class now, in my opinion. You just need to break up the large paragraphs in the first two sections, and make sure every paragraph has a citation attributing the source it comes from. Then it will be a B, I think. In

6744:

I have emailed the secretary of the Military Historical Society... maybe they might have an electronic copy that would be willing to share? If I have no joy maybe you could arrange an inter-library loan through uni? Anyway its a long shot but we'll see. Pretty certain my thesis above is correct

5820: 2063:

Hi, George. The criteria are very subjective, hence open to interpretation, so I understand your concerns. If you feel that I have made an error in assessment, or have been too harsh, I have no dramas with you requesting a second opinion. Also, if you wish I will not assess your articles in the

884:

template. Some of the paragraphs are still very long, also, and might be better if they were broken up a bit. I've left comments on the talk page. You've certainly done a lot of work on the article for which I commend you. With a little bit more, it should be a B class. When you wish to have it

6774:

Hi Nick, if its not too much trouble that would be great. I haven't had a response to my email to the Military Historical Society yet, nor have I had any luck with the original contributor of the unsourced information in the RSAR article (he never responds to anything but I thought I would try

6020:

Hi, Buggie111. I feel it fails coverage and accuracy for a number of reasons. My main concern is the Construction section. It is mainly just a large block quote about the an Act of Congress, with only one sentence about the actual construction. Information about why the ship's construction was

4957:

Thanks, mate. Those maps are excellent additions. Regarding adding them, on anything I've worked on or written, I'm fine with you just adding them in as you see fit. For other articles I'd suggest just putting a message on the talk page stating your intent to add a different map and asking for

738:

Hi, Auntieruth. It looks like I assessed it just before you did a bit of work on it. At the time it was lacking some biographical information and supporting materials (i.e. infobox or image). You appear to have added those in now, so I have updated the assessment to B class as it now meets the

3246:

I've rehashed the Archduke and added Infobox Military person, dates etc etc. It would seem that this came from German WP, as it has German templates and I am not very good at German but I know it when I see it. I think you are quite right about linking Palatine, and I think I already did when

1480:), there is no need for both a citations section and a references section. This is far clearer. Also is there a reason why this footnote could nto be incorporated into the article? If you could point out other articles where this style of citation is used, I'd like to review them as well.-- 6371:

Sure, not a bad article at all. I've upgraded assessment to start class. It needs an image or infobox to satisfy B class criterion # 5 and just a bit more detail for B2 (e.g in Early life state parents names, siblings etc.) IMO. The bare url chains should probably be hidden also, either with

685:

As an aside point, if you are wanting to get others involved in working on the article, you might like to try dropping a note on the talk page of the Firearms project notifying any interested parties and asking if anyone is keen to work on the article. The project's talk page can be found at

5036: 4100:

Thanks for the tweaks to the article too, some good pickups. Ordered refs... wow, sounds like OCD. Actually looks good like that so may be I've got it too! BTW some IP just blanked your user page... but someone already reverted it for you. Wonder what his beef is? Anyway cheers again.

3228:. Another suggestion might be to add a note below the map clarifying the term, or if it is not germane to the topic at hand, just dropping the term altogether and using only those that relate specifically in that instance, or those that might be easily recognisable or understood. — 121: 2227:

No real reason, just seems a standard thing to put on a talk page, given that its called a talk header. That way if anyone wants the links, they've got them. If you don't like it, I've got no dramas with you removing it, but it wasn't put there to offend or anything like that. —

585:

Hi, mate. There are still a couple of places that need citations. I have added in the tags where I feel they are needed. Also, I didn't mention it before, but I feel the grammar needs a little bit of work (not much). There are a couple of single sentence paragraphs that could be

6263:

Found a couple of journal articles on ProQuest, not sure if they are any use to you, though. I've emailed them to you, but I'm struggling to get any time online at the moment so I don't think I'll be able to help. Sorry. Anyway, hope to hear from you again in a week or so. —

1650:

Don't worry, I put myself down as a co-author-but I'd never of heard of him in the first place but for you. Having read te full recommendation for his DSO and the Bar in particualr though, I couldn't let him languish there as a stub though. Do your sources haev anything on

199:

see that you've gone through and expanded/corrected. Cheers. Any further help would be great. I am hoping to try to get a group of interested editors working on the article to get it up to GA as it is currently listed as being 'Top' importance to the Australia project. —

3299:

Italy is the modern flag and must be wrong because Italy didn't even exist then. All these came from the existing nascent articles, so I have precedent in using them, but they are just plain wrong and I can't find better (but I am useless at searching for these things).

4537:

Hi, not sure myself as it was already there when I got to work on it. I *think* it is because instead of re-raising the 10th Division for the invasion of Japan, when the invasion was cancelled the Army raised the 34th Bde for occupation duties. Does that make sense? —

1065:

I don't think so in terms of the contest, but DYKs should help increase the hits on your articles. Of course, with increased hits, comes an increased possibility of vandalism, but that is the price we pay I guess for working on an encyclopedia anyone can edit. —

5821:

http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/search~S1?/Xsurabaya&Go=+go+&searchscope=1&SORT=A/Xsurabaya&Go=+go+&searchscope=1&SORT=A&SUBKEY=surabaya/1%2C42%2C42%2CB/frameset&FF=Xsurabaya&Go=+go+&searchscope=1&SORT=A&41%2C41%2C

4647:

itself, though, so that is what I've done. Thus the template will be automatically collapsed on all articles when they load and readers can just click the "show" button if they wish to view. Are you okay with this? If not please feel free to revert. Cheers. —

2529:

Hi, Jim. No, that's a new one for me. The two sources I have really only mention the two I've listed, possibly because they resulted in clasps for the IGSM (I think). It seems likely that there were operations in Waziristan over a number of periods, though. —

5400:

Firefox supports the columns function. On IE, the two columns mark up just seems to make the font slightly smaller. Not really sure why. Yeah, it will be huge with all those refs, but ultimately it will be a much better list. Good work so far, by the way. —

3256:

Assuming you are Australian, I wish you happy summer solstice, you bastard. It is bloody cold here but clear and sunny. Never mind, our days will soon be getting longer and yours shorter. To my credit, I complained at WIkipedia Signpost on using "fall" (see

362:

Yes, played from age seven to 24 (just club) in Brisbane. Nothing special really, but huge fan. Had to give it up when I joined the Army, though. Hoping to go to the World Cup when it comes to Australia. I used to work for Cricinfo when I was younger too. —

6759:

I live in Canberra and regularly visit the ADFA Library (as a member of the public; I'm not in the military) so can look into this if you like sometime in the next couple of weeks. Just to clarify though, what books (and/or pages?) are you interested in.

2368:

Hi, Lar. Sorry, I'm an idiot. I meant to put 'yes' there, but for some reason left it blank. Thanks for the fix. Not sure about the infobox. It probably doesn't need it really, as it is well supported with images. That's just my opinion, though. —

3760:

Hi GregJackP. I've added some more comments to the ACR now. Also I've left a message on the census template talk page, asking if anyone knows how to fix the issue with the auto date linking. Hopefully someone will offer asssistance. Cheers. —

2450:

Yeah, I don't think they'll exist either. I've found that people don't usually write any Reliable Sources for anyone under MoH or VC winners, unless they're of a high rank or do something else that's notable. I've proposed an addition to

4085:

Okay, I've taken a look over the article now and I think it looks in pretty good shape. I made a few tweaks, mainly to the lead, so please take a look and see if you are happy with the changes or not. If not just roll it back. Cheers. —

2600: 4393: 679:

The ratings themselves are rather subjective and it is best not to take them too personally. I read the article and believe that it is quite good so far and have no doubt that when it is finished it will be at least a B class if not

4443:

Question - when speaking of a vulnerable position on a battlefield would you describe it as "undefendable" or "indefensible"? Wiktionary has both but the latter is mostly encountered talking about abstract things like ideas. cheers

873:

Hi, mate. I've taken another look. It is generally up to standard, but I feel it still needs a few citations. I have added the tags where I feel you need them. Also it could be improved by formatting the web citations using the

5248: 2815: 2631: 6605:

Hi Rupert. I came across this article and its looking pretty good so far. Any idea about the post war history of the battalion though (i.e. the 10th/27th Battalion, Royal South Australia Regiment etc)? Ian Kurings book

6430: 5836: 2403: 5819::o - yeah as for the southeast asian taskforce- there must a whole minefield of potential stubs no-one has even contemplated yet - I know a stash of war-time (ie 2WW) british intelligence folders at my old uni - 1686:

a month apparently as they are coming from the UK. Tried to get Messenger's book (per the A class review for No. 3 Commando), but no dice. The place that had it wouldn't ship out to the colonies, apparently...:-(

3183:

Hi, Rapier. It is not so much a case of the project deeming Silver Star recipients as not being worthy individuals, but that the project has come to hold the opinion that a person who receives the award as being

5214:

tells it to round the number to the nearest whole mi. Maybe if you knock that out of it, that might fix it? No worries about Mt St Peter's Church. I'm interested to see what the students come up with. Cheers. —

1021:

Sorry one last question and this seems silly but is it better to create a stub, then build it to a start and then get it to B or if I create an article that is B class does it count for the stub and start also.

889:. As I've done a bit of work on it now, it is probably best if someone else takes a look at the next review otherwise it would be a possible conflict of interest on my part. Cheers and keep up the good work. — 2627: 1160:

No worries. Well I'd say that both you at John should get the credit of a GA as you both put a lot of work into it. As reviewer, I shouldn't take any credit, besides most of my work was very minor tweaking. —

6396:

Thanks for having a look. I find your comments very interesting. I felt it was still "under construction", and was working my way though that list of URLs! Maybe it's time to tidy things up a bit ... Cheers,

1036:

New articles count for stub and start, I believe. So that if you get it to a B having started it from scratch within the month, you get 6 points. Where as if you create a stub or start, it is just 1 point. —

6297: 4783: 4185:

Hi, Wayne. I've tweaked the sentence so that it allows the reader to decide the reasons, and includes both views in the footnote. If you get a chance, can you take a look and see what you think? Cheers. —

4505: 2555: 6610:

may have something on this but I'm not sure, might be worth a look at least. I have a copy and if you ask the lady of the house nicely I'm sure she would happily extend borrowing rights to you. Cheers.

5517: 1757:

Yeah, I'm watching it right now...and am close to tears! I really think they should have played a specialist spinner, but I guess currently Australia's batting is the problem. Damn another wicket...—

779:

It looks like someone beat me to it and they have rated it a B class. I've added it the checklist for the Germany project so that the rating shows correctly on the talk page. Good work, by the way. —

520:

Only the people who know BA lingo know who you are. However, you can disappear and take another name should you wish - we all, should we have not have done anything against wikirules, have a right to

3705: 3607: 3915:

of the 7th from the library, but can't find its WWII history yet. I have to get my skates on, as come next week I'll be very busy and probably won't get anything done on Wiki for quite some time. —

3710: 3337: 2835: 2283:

There was a discussion about that. Apart from the welcome messages, we already have the message that appereas after someone tries to edit the talk page. This message could be expanded probably. --

1301: 4057:

Hmm, thinking some more, I'm not sure how the symbols could be explained in the image itself without making it too crowded. Perhaps they could be explained on the image description page itself? —

6249:

it won't be pretty. I want my old job back. Its 2 am and I'm still working on rubbish for Monday. Of course, if I got off wiki and did some work, maybe I wouldn't still be awake, but anyway... —

3752: 2510: 3973:

try to check in every now and again, but for the next six months to a year I will not be able to contribute to my previous levels, unfortunately. I certainly appreciate your comments, though. —

6312: 5437: 7452: 71: 6994: 3397:

Cheers mate, Merry Christmas to you to. I've just relocated to Brisbane myself. I hope everything works out for you in your new loc and you can keep things real up on the Hill. Take care. —

4784: 2821: 1506:. This format was one that I adopted after a GA review on an article I was working on. The shortened footnotes style is used by a number of military history contributors. See for instance 1199: 6730:

Apparently the closest library copy is 590 miles (950 km) away at the ADFA library. Pity I'm not down that way anymore. Could have just ducked out for a walk and picked it up last year. —

3725: 564:

a bit subjective (as editors have differing views on what makes an A Class article and what doesn't). I certainly agree, the story deserves telling. Take care and keep up the good work. —

6106: 2915: 2673: 849:

relation to the dashes, it is a really minor thing and it doesn't stop an article making it to a B class (probably not even a GA, but certainly A and FA class require those minor sort of

253: 7368:

Done. It looks good to me now. Good work. I had a bit of a look at the Guiness World Records page but there was a lot to scroll through. You might have more luck. You can find it here:

6880: 2550: 7160:

finally, create "First Battle of Urumqi (1933)". I hope this helps. Let me know if you need help with this and I'll be happy to move the page for you, and set up the dab page for you.

5864:

Well if you see anything in that bunch (they are mostly nice and thick with interesting mixes of photos and maps and text - let me know - I can borrow em and scan appropriate items :)

1600:

Just to jump in, I agree that this is a standard form of footnoting. All the articles I've nominated for FA and A class status use this, and it hasn't attracted any complaints at all.

326:

Thanks, I'm still trying to find my feet in the cricket project, so I am focusing mainly on just general clean up stuff. Only done a couple of articles, but hopefully it is helping. —

5466: 1051:

Ok thanks, got 6 points then so far. I left the talk pages blank and I will fill in more data in the next couple days. Got a couple possible DYK's too, are they worth anything?:-) --

5837:

http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/search~S1?/tSpecial+report+(Allied+Geographical+Section.+Sout/tspecial+report+allied+geographical+section+southwest+pacific+area+++66/-3,-1,0,B/browse

5756:

Certainly thinking about it, but thinking I should wait a bit longer. I probably haven't got the experience yet, though. I'm finding I'm still learn something most days on Wiki. —

1302: 4028:

Thanks Nick - I'll see what it can do. I'm limited by both ability and the software I have. I'm using Powerpoint which is not really the tool of choice for cartographers I'm sure!

3778: 3753: 3556: 1502:

Obviously I disagree and find your insistence to not be very helpful to be honest. The sources for the article are quite clear. It uses shortened footnotes, which are included in

6570: 6552:

too close to the original source. Are there some other sources you could consult? For the WWII section, the Official Histories themselves could be used, they can be found here:

6468: 5474:

Hi, I've taken a look and added some comments. To be honest, the some of geopolitical stuff is "beyond my ken". There are a few issues, though, that need to be addressed IMO. —

3716:

Hi, Damon. Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. Overall you have a couple of articles going at the moment that I think have some very good potential. Keep up the good work! —

6278:

Hi. Thanks for that, its a start at least. Yellowmonkey has put me onto some books, will have to see if they are available through Googlebooks though. Take it easy. Cheers.

5953:

Hi, I had a look, but I'm really out of my depth with ship articles. I think it is probably a B, but I'd probably prefer if someone with more knowledge rated it. Cheers. —

2477:

about these articles, with the article creator and another use claiming that these articles are notable, as are recipients of the Navy Cross and Marine Corps Brevet Medal.

5997:

Sure, happy to do so. I've taken a look and agree that it is now B class. I've left a few comments/suggestions on the article talk page that you might like to consider. —

2669: 6095: 5061:

status; as you previously helped, I wondered if you might have time to look at it again, and perhaps help improve it. All contributions welcome. Thank you for your time.

6303:

Hi, buistR, I've added my opinion to the talk page. To be honest, though, I've not got any real specific content knowledge, but I believe that you are right. Cheers. —

4730: 4716: 4697: 5666: 5467: 3158:

Yes, I've looked over it. I've reworded the military career section to deal with the issues as I see them. Feel free to revert if you don't agree with the changes. —

1942: 591:

In regards to James' brother, I have started the GA Review and have a few comments. I feel that if you can address those, it would be a GA. Hope this helps. Cheers. —

4598:

redlinks in the campaign box sometime, but suspect the last couple of battles involving the US forces will remain for a while unfortunately. Keep up the good work! —

3385: 1652: 7121: 6739: 6582: 6273: 4066: 1781:

quite well out of the post-war settlement. Of course there were many factors in this (Cold War and "lasting peace" issues) and it is not necessarily a bad thing. —

5850:

Interesting. There's quite a few location stubs I'd be keen to see be created for some of the battle articles I've written surrouding the Bougainville campaign. —

4569:

Sounds good. So far I have created two articles of ships in the list. I have a book with the information on all ships in the book, so will keep me extremely busy.

2210: 1975: 1766: 1748: 1725: 1695: 1672: 1641: 1434: 1389: 1345: 898: 866: 242: 6332:

I've added a quick review to the article's talk page. Unfortunately, I've not got much online time at the moment so can't really do much more than that. Sorry. —

6178: 2042:

Hi, Kebeta. I'd suggest putting in the request for a formal copy edit, then you can be sure that the issues are resolved before requesting another assessment. —

6885: 6469: 6006: 5941: 4981: 4967: 4924: 4805: 4467: 4453: 4432: 4414: 3684:

Your welcome. I'll be keeping an eye on the article for the next couple of weeks just to be safe; if any vandalism occurs during that time, you can report it to

2423: 2109: 2091: 2073: 1130: 1090: 653:

be concerned about an article being assessed before it is complete. Once it is finished you can request a re-assessment quite easily by adding it to the list at

573: 7081: 7031:

Something else that could be worth trying to fit in is Steamroller Farm in Nth Africa, I think the battle honour was unique to 6 Cmdo here is a link to a forum

6868: 6754: 6678: 6287: 6258: 6155: 5765: 5653: 5483: 5460: 5274: 5242: 5224: 5018: 5004: 4899: 4405:

done it can be pruned back if necessary. I've made a few tweaks, mainly around Manual of Style issues, but it otherwise seems okay. Good work so far. Cheers. —

4110: 4095: 4080: 4052: 3952: 3938: 3924: 3905: 3882: 3601: 3331: 3167: 3004: 2292: 2278: 2237: 1437: 1412: 1392: 1367: 1348: 1319: 1295: 1193: 836: 788: 774: 748: 245: 208: 186: 7354: 7336: 7107: 7058: 7020: 5431: 4674: 4656: 3653: 2539: 967: 924: 4525: 4350: 3500: 3209: 3145: 2592: 2578: 1274: 547: 533: 515: 438: 416: 394: 372: 357: 335: 312: 298: 7294: 7273: 7190: 6539: 6514: 6500: 6486: 6341: 6030: 5962: 4776: 4493: 3996: 3982: 3805: 3770: 3697: 3679: 3308: 3279: 3261:) as being Not Very Good and that in Australasia it is spring. I think the preferred term on WP is Oceania, but that sometimes seems too broad a term for me. 3237: 2926: 2895: 2864: 2808: 2772: 2741: 2711: 723: 707: 666: 638: 616: 600: 7380: 7315: 7246: 7216: 6700: 6141: 6074: 5920: 5904: 5892: 5871: 5859: 5845: 5830: 5814: 5793: 5260: 3849: 3828: 3538: 3522: 3079: 2504: 2468: 2445: 2261: 2139: 1545: 1519: 1489: 1467: 466: 7181:

Hi, Bigturtle. I've left some comments on the article's talk page. I think I've sorted the image issue. The article looks quite good to me now. Well done.

7169: 5630: 5173: 5158: 5139: 5124: 5097: 4877: 3746: 3664: 3527:

Thanks mate - the same to you - pity about the bloody 'asia' continent creators - and the followons into milhist and all - I think they had thought it was

3478: 2779: 2474: 1585: 1541: 1485: 1170: 1116: 1075: 1060: 1046: 1016: 989: 942: 7401: 7043: 7011:

Hi, Jim, it is probably worth a mention, I'm just not sure how to fit it in at the moment without it seeming like a throw away reference at the moment. —

7006: 6914: 6854: 6840: 6826: 6725: 6654: 6599: 6564: 6406: 6391: 5983: 5504: 5410: 5386: 5372: 4826: 4755: 4624: 4607: 4578: 4564: 4547: 4383: 4369: 4269: 4223: 4209: 4195: 4144: 3627: 3406: 2051: 1934: 1790: 1623: 1609: 494: 156: 131: 6460: 6442: 5230: 4945: 815: 273: 6236: 5583: 4859: 3357: 2685: 2664: 2643: 2622: 1916: 1144: 957: 6922: 5926: 5146: 2395: 2378: 1081:

the month/start of the new month; they will assess the article for you. So, don't frett if you have not got it re-assessed in time. Good luck! Cheers,

6802: 6788: 6769: 6634: 6620: 6048: 4037: 4019: 3790: 1536:

This is very different from 99% of the articles out there which is why it caught my eye. If you want to remove the tag though, I wont put it back. --

6831:

I've found and photocopied the article and will scan it in tomorrow - it looks to be very useful. If you ping me an email I'll send the scan to you.

5883:

time and effort if I could even get a look at the contents page so I could see if the book is worth trying to buy/borrow from up here in Brisbane. —

5357:

My longer trip seems to perpetually be "next month", though I think it will happen at the end of April, or the funding will turn back into a pumpkin.

5354:

I had a day-trip to Fairbairn last month. I thought I'd be going to Russell and the south-side too, so I got a car. When I returned it, I'd done 8km.

3688:. Note when you do that the editors was warned that any further vandalism would result in a block since your problem editor has already been warned. 3293: 3113: 1655:? I guess it's another ad hoc grouping like Layforce named after its commander, I've linked it here, adn in Tod's article in this way, because plain 798: 3861: 2486: 6691:

1RSAR was split into the 10th and 27th battalions on 1 July 1965, when the 9th Task Force was re-formed but nothing yet quite proves it precisely.

4485: 3047: 1952: 929:

I just wanted to you to know that your not alone, I have attempted several and have only recently gotten one DYK that made it to the main page for

6505:

I've updated the assessment to B class. I've made a few tweaks, that you might want to check to make sure I didn't change anything incorrectly. —

1031: 4591: 1537: 1481: 6900: 6366: 5191:

Hi, Ruth. Interesting. Take a look at these variations below (you will need to hit the Edit button to look at the different mark up codes used):

4180: 4161: 5744: 5701: 5510: 729: 7049:

on the forum. I think it best to probably follow that which is in Saunders' account given that it would probably be considered more reliable.

168: 3200:

and when is it not? I'm starting to get a bit confused by many of these policies, hence why I'm choosing mainly to stay out of the debate. —

2922: 214: 5565: 4868:

Congratulations AustralianRupert, and thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages!

3316: 6426: 691: 4360:

edited on the RAR. Books on the Army in the Vietnam War normally also remark on the generally high quality of the conscripted soldiers.

3929:

We're both going to get the DTs I think... no wiki for 6 months... all my articles are going to get smashed by IPs and other goobers...

4630: 2933: 853:

tweaks). It is a little confusing at first (and I still have trouble with some aspects of the Manual of Style myself), but if you read

5728: 5685: 2269:

new users supposed to find the policies regarding talkpage etiquette if they are only added to a page after someone causes trouble? —

105: 6323: 5989: 5947: 5009:

Cheers for the heads up. I've shoved myself in there but if you want to take it back feel free to bump me down to the support slot.

4275: 4004: 3412: 2702:

Hi, yes I'll take a look, but to be honest I don't know much about the more specific aspects of the Gurkha religion, origins, etc. —

2610: 799: 5612: 7255: 2560: 2495:

Cheers, I'll take a look. I'm a bit busy in RL at the moment, so I can't contribute to the level I'd like at the moment. Cheers. —

2359: 1176: 7327:

Hi, Jim. Are you trying to add it to Knowledge image, or a Commons image. I think it only works on Commons, but I might be wrong.

4237: 1632:

Hi, David. Thanks for that. You've done some really good work expanding that, so most of the credit should be yours. Well done! —

7072:

Looks good, well done. I made a couple of minor tweaks which you may wish to review. I think it is good enough to remain listed.

3583: 2891: 2860: 2804: 2768: 2652: 904: 5111:

Hi, Mdunn30. Looks good to me. I've re-assessed as B class. Good work. The next step if you are wanting to take it further is a

5078: 629:

was sent to me via email. Different! I added those corrections. Article now reads better. Closer or ready for A-Class approval?

7362: 7112:

I've added the 101 Troop image to the article now, in the Formation/Early ops section. I think it works well. Thanks for that.

5319:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 4308:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 3966: 2966:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2737: 2691: 2337:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2178:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2121: 2014:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1884:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1829:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1458:

In what why are they not proper citations? This is the format used by a quite a few members of the military history project. —

1237:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 285:

Hi, mate. Yeah sorry copyright questions are not really my area of expertise. I think you can ask questions about copyright at

264:

No worries at all. Always happy to help where I can. You did most of the work, of course. But cheers. Keep up the good work! —

7034:

which may provide some clues. The articles looking good nice to see some other cmdo getting the credit for what they did. --

5335: