User talk:Anotherclown/Archive 14

1042: 4460: 1258:. That said prior to the discussion at WP:AUS there seems to have been approx. 40 + MILHIST A class articles that were also rated A for WP:AUS so I think at some point there was the belief around MILHIST among some editors at least that this agreement had already occurred (I seem to recall thinking this for many years but never really seeing anything in black and white - nor really ever looking for it though). I think YellowMonkey *might* of mentioned it once somewhere around the early years of my involvement but unfortunately he has long since left so I cannot confirm it (and its possible my memory is way off at any rate and I have just libeled an innocent). Not much help, sorry. 1931:

other important insignia etc - as long as its referenced of cse), as some of our articles are indeed lacking this and I can see that some readers would find it of interest. I guess the main concern I have is just the amount of room we devote to it. Ack your example of 1 CDO, but it is still of fairly low quality and needs a lot of work (pls note most of it isn't referenced and it is still rated as "Start / C Class" depending on the project). There are better examples of articles that we could use to help us decide how to provide this info to the readers, specifically articles that have gone through a formal review process like

1887:(or some similar standard of publication) include detailed information about its UCP? I'd say it would not. Pls don't take these comments as being disrespectful of the importance I suspect you place on the insignia though, they are not intended to be (I've worn a uniform for a few years myself). Anyway its not a big issue for me so if you still don't agree with this pls just say so and I'll restore the text to its own section (or pls do so yourself), albeit that I will do so with the stated concern that I think it ultimately detracts from the overall tone of the article. All the best. 2329:

nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the

1587:

somewhere or is it a hardcopy? If it is already available electronically it might be suitable for inclusion in the "external links" section of the article as it sounds relevant (and would probably be of considerable interests to readers looking for more information about the event - certainly I frequently look at similar reports when doing research etc). If its not available on the internet already have you considered arranging to do so? We could then link it as I suggested as long as it meets the requirements of

3689: 4192: 31: 2486:. Have you considered trying to replace some of these sources with more established / recognised printed materials (for instance magazines, journals, or books)? This can be a time consuming process I know but I sometimes use have to use academic research databases available through the various state libraries to track down specialised publications and then either request loans or photocopies, or increasingly they can be available electronically. Unsure what state you are in but the 348:

some detail on its formation and initial training etc? This info stuck me as not being present (although potentially its not available in the sources you have). Outpost Snipe is probably the one needing the most work - I think it may only be a Start-class at the moment, perhaps if you have got some free time you might consider adding a background / prelude section and an aftermath at least as this would provide a bit of context for the action described? Hope this helps.

4035: 4658: 3761: 3002: 2303: 1380: 1782:

several variations of English, date / time format, etc all of which is considered perfectly acceptable. Unless you have a policy that supports your changes then I'd say your continued efforts to standardise these articles is potentially disruptive. Pls do not bother posting anything on this talk page again unless it is a link that demonstrates that your prosed guideline is now a policy. Otherwise in the absence of any evidence to the contrary

2859: 2957: 969: 897: 825: 753: 681: 216: 144: 3669: 4707: 3917: 3312: 2645: 2001: 1108: 3262:), merely they involve other editors providing suggestions on an article's development / improvement which can help to ensure that it covers all aspects of a topic and that any errors, formatting mistakes, and typos etc are picked up. After a peer review many editors then consider nominating there articles for a higher level review e.g. GA etc. The instructions for listing an article for a peer review can be found here: 3869: 2503:) if necessary, but hopefully you don't need to go there as those places are fairly unforgiving and often they don't really resolve the matter anyway in my limited experience of them. The best outcome is to try to develop some collaboration if that is at all possible. Sorry this probably isn't a lot of help but hopefully its something. If you need any more advice pls feel free to ask of cse. Kind regards. 524: 3608: 2808: 3196: 2587: 1655: 596: 286: 2212:

solve - There is a list on Knowledge called "Stalag Luft III murders" and I cant get my articles on several of the ones with names starting B, C, D, E and F to connect to the articles I've written because of the way that the list author has configured their names - please can you make these connect for me. thanks for your help. Researcher 1944

3032:. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! 4424:

probably a more nuanced assessment of his legacy and reputation). I lack any flair for biography and I fear I've not been able to really capture the subject so if I was in any way able to bludge off your abilities in this area I'm up for it. Also thanks for the tip re the images, I will have a look. All the best.

4291: 4400:

On a related point, when I was doing a last-minute search of AWM for any newly added photos of Pollard as CGS (and found none), I decided to search for AATTV images as well -- given that that article was bereft of contemporary photos -- on the off-chance that some would be PD US Gov. Didn't find any

3801:

The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other

2420:

article which was woeful. Classic Aussie Dog. My dog is very vaguely similar so I was curious. I put in a few hours (as you do) rewriting the article and I thought I had improved it. But another editor reverted all my edits which I thought was a fairly extreme position to take. He has some experience

2328:

Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink

1858:

I don't believe that having a section on the UCP (esp in this instance) is undue weight. The UCP of the NGAWW is one of a kind, a "commando"-type colourpatch with a distinctly "non-commando" flash, that displays immediately the special and "independent" nature of the unit, outside common regulation.

347:

Gday Keith, these look in fairly good shape so far but are obviously fairly brief. To me Point 175 is easily a C but probably needs an aftermath section to pull it up to a B. Special Armored Brigade is very succinct but looks like a C also - any idea of the casualties they sustained, also perhaps add

4672:

For "once again being a stalwart of the project's review processes, as well as finding the time to write several GA-class articles over the year, and pitching in as a co-ord in the current tranche," I have the honor of awarding you this WikiProject Barnstar as an honorable mention for being named as

4591:

G'day, Kamran, from what I can tell it isn't a direct quote. If it were a direct quote, the whole thing should be presented in quotation marks. It isn't, and it seems differently worded than the source. If part of it is a direct quote, then that small part could be put into quote marks, and then the

4423:

No worries at all Ian. I've hit the wall with this one due to other commitments so would welcome any assistance you'd be willing to offer. Of course please feel free to add / amend as you see fit. The lead definitely needs to be expanded and the later parts of the article also (esp Vietnam, but also

2455:

cycle (like you seem to be) is the best way to try and develop good faith and (hopefully) some consensus on how to improve the article. From a quick review of the discussion you both seem to have some valid points so it might be necessary to get some more opinions (ideally from editors knowledgeable

2312:

Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from

1878:

explanation of the individual aspects of the NGAWW's patch would be of significant interest to the average reader (perhaps to a collector or someone with an interest in this area sure, or maybe to a relative). Given the amount of detail that could still be written about far more important aspects of

1570:

My great uncle Colonel Edgar Nicholas Glotzbach commanded the first brigade at the battle of Suoi Bong Trang. I have a copy of the official report of his actions in the battle and was wondering if you had any interest in it. You seem to have extensive experience with editing/writing about Australian

2450:

Gday AWHS. Unfortunately I don't have any specific knowledge about the subject of the article so cannot be of any assistance there (way out of my lane). IRT to the reversion of the material you added I can certainly see why someone undoing such a large amount of work in one go would be frustrating,

2333:

has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time

2211:

Hi, I'm a newbie here, I've only been active this month. I've done several articles on participants in the Great Escape, thanks for your help with a couple of them. (and thanks also for your vote to keep my fighter ace article on Nicholas Gresham Cooke). Please can you help me with a problem I cant

1901:

No problem sir! Let's leave it as is for now. As noted elsewhere, I believe it's key to any unit ID - and many older encyclopaedias would definitely have described and noted it, as they regularly do for particular corp and unit badges. At some point I'll have to buy you a drink to thank you for all

1781:

You may have chosen to implement it but has the proposal received community endorsement and become policy? According to the link you provided it has not. Regardless, you will notice that most articles on Knowledge do not follow the exact same format with many variations of layout, just as there are

1408:

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the

1272:

Ha, so that's why you did it -- did seem a bit of a funny coincidence... I think the reciprocal arrangement note made it into the AUS ACR draft because I suggested it would be a good idea in the noticeboard discussion -- a bit chicken-and-egg I think, or wishing something into existence! I wasn't

366:

Greetings, I cited the articles as best I could with the OH and the NZ and A OHs but can't do much more with what I've got. I moved BCS to Babini Group to be consistent with Maletti Group and found a little more in Macksey about its last ride but I fear that the deficiencies need Italian sources to

3782:

with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing

2900:

Thanks for the CE it it looks looks like I've got double-word disease. I'm still pilled up to the eyebrows having got a trapped nerve and It's hard to concentrate. I thought the article was going to be a quickie but my sources aren't good enough to a degree that I haven't experienced before, hence

1930:

No problem at all, the exploits of these men caught my attention and I was surprised (perhaps a little embarrassed) that I'd never heard of the unit until you started the article. Actually I do agree with you regarding the value of including more info in our unit articles about their UCPs (and any

3241:

Gday. This is a really good topic and it surprises me that we didn't have an article on it until now, so well done making a start on it. I haven't read through the whole thing but it looks in quite good shape to me (although I'd suggesting making sure every paragraph has a reference at the end so

1438:

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that

1229:

Hi mate, I noticed you updating some WP:AUS assessments with the articles' MilHist A-Class rating. Naturally I think this makes sense but was wondering if you could recall when/whether WP:AUS had formally agreed to partner MilHist this way (as I recall Ships and Aviation did)? It's apropos at the

4385:

Hi AC, for some silly reason I never watchlisted Serong's article so I didn't realise you'd gone ahead and done all that great work until I chanced to look at it after nominating Reg Pollard at FAC (not that I've had a chance to do a huge amount of article improvement in that time). Well done! I

3476:

need in the academy, and I created the three coordinator election pages last time, so I though I was in the best position at the moment to put something in the academy about it. Glad to see you liked it, though like I said it still needs some spit and polish to get there. Now if only we could an

994:

and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the

922:

850:

778:

706:

401:

I'd say Point 175 is pretty close - Is there a ref for the "division remnants" table? Also Mario Balotta is mentioned in the infobox as the Italian commander but isn't mentioned in the article. Could this be included in the text with a reference somewhere? Likewise with the casualties and losses

241:

169:

1434:

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will

1322:- Definitely 8 at this stage (although the upcoming Defence White Paper is meant to make a decision on the possibility of a further two to equal 10). According to a media release today from the Minister for Defence the 8th C-17A is due to be delivered in "late 2015" - pls see here for details 3011:

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools

1586:

G'day, I appreciated you making the offer. Realistically though I'm not looking at expanding that article any time soon so I wouldn't want you to go to the trouble of arranging to send it to me and then me not end up using it. That said is there a link to it already available on the internet

563: 4218: 3111: 4606:

Hello Kamran, thanks for the message. Rupert's comment above is a good summary of my reasons. From your edit I gather you believe that the usage of "Arabian Gulf" is incorrect here, is that right? If could you please elaborate on what your concern is we can discuss it. Thanks.

622:

I don't care, but regardless of the citation the numbers can't add up to 10%. That would mean 17k out of 175k French Union troops. There is no way to make that number work. If I find my copy of the Davidson book I guess I can try to harmonize the numbers.

3783:

longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!

1939:

which provides the info as part of the narrative, rather than having an individual section (and in sparing detail), and I'd say that that potentially might be a model for us to adopt and would be supportive of that if that is something you'd like to do.

2425:. I am certainly not a wikipedia expert, and like many have discovered by way by trial and error. Seems like an extreme position to take. He has reverted all edits on this article repeatedly for years so clearly it is very personal for him. Thoughts? 575: 2481:

under our current policy (definitely steer clear of any blogs unless written by recognised authorities on the topic for example). However, if there is a disagreement about whether a source is considered reliable or not you can request input from the

654:(Davidson) it is entirely possible that two reliable sources disagree on the point in question (i.e. Falls and Davidson). In that case we don't just delete one set of figures we generally include both with citations and allow the reader to decide. 4254: 2613:

Thanks for the B; the article's a bit scrappy as I've had to take bits and pieces from divers sources but that's what happens when you have a dash at articles needing citations and references. I also seem to have forgotten the alphabet.

1253:

Gday Ian. Thanks for letting me know but actually that discussion at WP:AUS was why I updated the assessments - it was mentioned in the thread about implementing their own A class review and I believe it is now in the documentation here

3794:, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, 1879:

this unit's operational service I think a whole section on the patch is too much. Placing it in a note is a way of retaining the info but reducing its prominence to focus on other more significant information (hence my comment about

2173: 2491: 3226:, I've received a kind comment from an Editor and it's been suggested that I put it in for Peer Review. Do you think it's OK for that and can you point me to how that works (sorry I'm a newbie here). Thanks for your help. R44 4628:

Scratch my comment, I can see you subsequently changed "Arabian Gulf" to "Persian Gulf" so I understand your point. I've no issue with this change and it works better than using "sic" which isn't at all clear. All the best.

1442:

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2

1393:, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors 559: 3043:, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Knowledge. 1786:

makes it clear that there is no requirement to adopt non-English characters. In fact I've made the point to you on several occasions that there are a number of good reasons not to do so (but that is another issue).

1752:

Hello - thank you for the link but the heading clearly says that its "proposed". And it hasn't been edited since March 2014???? Like I said there is no policy that mandates the use of these non-English characters.

4264: 645:

you will need to provide an appropriate inline citation that supports your contention. At any rate the main issue I have with your edit is that you did not provide an inline citation and that it did not maintain

4156:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 548: 4276: 2691: 1273:

sure that the draft (and the arrangement) was considered as ratified by the AUS project, but OTOH no-one's objected so perhaps this will be the black-and-white pronouncement we're looking for... :-) Cheers,

4754: 3964: 4592:"" would be applicable, but as it currently stands "" shouldn't be used unless it is made clear that the typo is in a quote, i.e quotation marks are placed around the words that are direct quotes. Regards, 4370:

Gday Ian. I have copies of both of Anne Blair's biographies of Serong so yes I'd be willing to give it a shot. I'd probably be the "junior partner" as it were though given your experience with biographies.

4260: 3367: 2056: 448:

Thanks for your suggestions, I've managed to make a start on unfinished business and also found a decent source for Snipe, which I hope to do today, work allowing. Baggush will have to be gleanings I'm

3659: 3496:

Greetings Another, can you point me to a description of the process for uploading primary sources please. Someone has a British intelligence summary with a translation of the Skorpion operation order

3130:

On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for an awesome 36 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done!

2934:

Ha! I know that feeling. I'm well on the mend but the GP wrote me off for another month today anyway. Should give me time to finish the excursion to France 1940. Hope your back improves soon. Regards

2521:

Thanks very much, always good to get some objective advice. It is certainly frustrating to improve an article and then have someone revert hours of work in one go. Will do exactly what you suggested.

3428: 1163: 2337:

For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on

1859:

It is also of distinct historical import, and if working on the assumption that "other" articles do no include them, I think it is more a case of "shouldn't they include them too"! Cheers, Grant..

4351:

Hi mate, just following up on something I said during the John Wilton GAN, re. possible collaboration. If you'd be interested in doing so some time next year, let me know -- I was thinking that

3806:

for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.

2964:

In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year.

2675: 2659: 1967: 2227:

Gday and welcome. Well done on these articles BTW, good to see them being created. I've linked the articles now (hopefully I got them all). What you needed to do was "pipe" the link - pls see

4738: 4722: 3948: 3932: 957: 3351: 3343: 3327: 1534: 1809:." It further found that that doesn't include simply implementing one's "preferred style", although it is acceptable to make such changes to ensure the internal consistency of an article. 2032: 2016: 4409:

that you could choose from to enhance the AATTV article at least, and perhaps Serong's, Australia in the Vietnam War, etc. Thought I'd let you know if you hadn't seen 'em... :-) Cheers,

3462: 2667: 4406: 4730: 3940: 2836: 2767: 1147: 1139: 1123: 4069: 3882: 3708: 3695: 3335: 2040: 1970:. I'm heading away at the end of the month so if (and only if!) you did want to comment there, it'd be great if I could action any concerns in the coming week or so. Thanks/cheers, 3255: 2781: 2683: 2405: 2024: 2890: 4746: 4386:

daresay it has the legs for at least GAN and I could look over prose prior to that if you like (the lead could probably stand some expansion as well on a quick glance). Cheers,

3956: 1238:

know in any case) and I mentioned that a reciprocal arrangement between MilHist and AUS ACR would be good and didn't think there was one as yet -- but perhaps there is? Cheers,

204: 132: 3035:

Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Knowledge. We regret to inform you that

2831: 3359: 1131: 1807:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Knowledge editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change

3631: 3581: 2346: 2048: 1935:. There are actually quite a few Australian unit articles that have been developed to a good standard so far, some of which do provide details about the UCP. One example is 1452: 1008: 300:

For completing 11 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers,

2279: 3055: 1155: 3090: 2384: 1496: 669: 634: 255: 183: 3862: 3243: 2753: 2538: 1255: 813: 2421:

but I notice he has a habit of reverts, edit wars and has been blocked at least once. So we have engaged in a bit of a relatively civil discussion on the talk page

3803: 2130: 2119: 741: 4601: 4191: 2776: 720: 4185: 3895: 2578: 864: 663: 4495: 3147: 1606: 792: 4110: 3093:. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. 2387:. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. 1499:. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. 4616: 4127: 3187: 2191:

Thank you for the notification but there really is no requirement to inform me here about your response. I've replied at the AFD entry nonetheless. Regards.

1646: 885: 936: 3275: 2240: 617: 4228: 4092:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

3139: 3121: 2146: 1949: 1925: 1911: 1896: 1796: 1776: 1762: 1600: 4638: 3771:

The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

2763: 2257: 2200: 1818: 611: 4237:

I hereby award you this as a token of the project’s appreciation for your contributions during the October 2015 Military history project backlog drive.

4079: 3728: 1883:). Remember this isn't a book about the topic, it is meant to be a concise encyclopedic article about the unit. Would an article about this unit in the 4526: 4201: 1516: 309: 4246: 3526: 2943: 2929: 2161: 2133:. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 1722: 1708: 472: 441: 411: 376: 357: 126: 4490: 4433: 4395: 4380: 4340: 4267:

awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December.

2530: 2451:

especially when your edits were by no means of poor quality in comparison to the current state of the article. That said I think handling it IAW the

2117: 1282: 1267: 4682: 3211: 2866:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can

2602: 1670: 1023: 951: 879: 807: 735: 270: 198: 4809: 3497: 3153: 2747: 1839: 1348: 1334: 1323: 509: 491: 458: 427: 396: 4019: 4418: 4025: 2111: 1295:

Gday AC If you have time can you check any local news down there to verify if Australia is going for 8 aircraft or staying with 7 - I made this

1231: 276: 4573: 3422: 3290: 3235: 4779: 4259:

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015

3989: 3392: 3101: 3012:

together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race.

2717: 2464:

requesting other opinions? Alternatively if after attempting to discuss the issue you still get no traction you could post a formal request at

2081: 1188: 587: 1218: 402:(mentioned in the infobox but don't appear in the article and aren't referenced). I'll have a look over the other two articles again shortly. 4690: 2628: 3900: 3250:

can be a good tool to help develop an article further so I'd agree with that suggestion. Ultimately they are not pass/fail affairs (unlike

1571:

Military operations. Even though he is an American Colonel and it's an American report I was wondering if you would be interested. Thanks,

2246: 4706: 4648: 3916: 3311: 2644: 2000: 1984: 1560: 1107: 1979: 3750: 3295: 3223: 2992: 2293: 1830:

As AC notes, there's no requirement to use diacritics in articles. English language books on Vietnam rarely use them in my experience.

1370: 4364: 3857: 3167: 2558: 1626: 4585: 650:. Regardless, given that there is currently a different figure in the article and it appears to be referenced to what is I assume a 102:

I've been using the word processor on Open Office to change tag ref to efn and managed to add brackets on the end. Very careless....

1091: 540: 4501: 2274: 2221: 1247: 111: 2973: 2863: 1802: 322:

Since I've got the weekend off I'm looking at all the things I've got pending. Do you think it's worth reviewing items like this

3611:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

2811:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

2623: 1580: 4775: 4208: 4135: 3985: 3388: 2759: 2713: 2483: 2077: 1746: 1693: 1184: 958: 886: 814: 742: 670: 205: 133: 4562: 3242:

readers can verify where the information comes from - this is also a requirement for an article to be rated B and above - see

2867: 1868: 341: 4783: 4574:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Military_history_of_Australia&type=revision&diff=695575029&oldid=695435799

4310: 3993: 3848:

Hi Anotherclown, having a look at New Guinea Force. Will be ugly for a while but hopefully it will come out okay in the end.

3396: 3163: 3160:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2920:

of late... Not to mention the fact that my jaw is getting increasingly sore from whinging about it. Hope you're on the mend.

2721: 2554: 2551:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2512: 2126: 2085: 1622: 1619:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1192: 1079: 983:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 911:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 839:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 767:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 695:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 553: 230:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 158:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 3217: 2185: 4272: 4181: 2401: 1512: 1296: 630: 3778:! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, 3486: 2910: 2473:

That aside I'd say one of the main issues probably is the perceived quality of the sources you have available and I think

3508: 3040: 3016:, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. 3008:

GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!

1308: 517: 4405:, which by my reading should be allowable on Commons. The ones with that licence seem to have an ID prefix of "PJE", so 4041: 3654: 1041: 4322: 4168:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3573: 2853: 2849: 2842: 2794: 2787: 1521: 3433:

G'day mate, I've come across a few articles which are wanting for structure, which you might have the sources to fix:

4459: 4089: 3453:. Unfortunately, I don't really have the sources to fix these, but I think you might. Anyway, take it easy. Regards, 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 1767:

It has been implemented, why do you think your articles are the only ones at odds with the rest of the encyclopedia?

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4539: 3641:...for the invitation. I've added my name to the member list and am happy to join. I'm currently copyediting the 3554: 3434: 3263: 3039:, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of 2917: 1959: 991: 976: 962: 643: 2916:

No worries, always glad to help out in however a small way. I can sympathize re the trapped nerve as I've had the

4268: 4177: 4062: 4053: 3873: 3675: 3594: 3587: 2461: 2397: 2330: 1612: 1508: 2901:

adding a caveat to the lead. Still, it's in better shape than when I stared, double-word frenzy or not. Regards

4346: 2465: 2441: 1014:

Likewise pls feel free to delete, it is simply an automatically created file redirect following an image move.

3678:, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Knowledge's 942:

Delete like the others pls, only a file redirect that has been automatically created following an image move.

3880:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

3152:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2543:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1611:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1553: 1537:. You commented at the MILHIST review, I thought you might be interested in dropping a line there. Cheers, -- 1356: 4532: 4474:

A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016.

3798:

stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.

2500: 2416:

Hello, you have been very helpful to me in the past so I wanted to seek your opinion. I stumbled over the

4173: 3259: 2487: 1936: 1825: 4597: 4581: 4242: 4093: 4075: 3809:

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

3627: 3458: 2886: 2827: 2457: 1801:

In fact this sort of behaviour has been specifically considered by the Arbitration Committee before at

1224: 996: 924: 852: 780: 708: 243: 171: 38: 4576:

quoting that it's not a direct quo9te ... actually, it is. could you undo your edit, please? Regards,

4058:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 4106: 1073: 238: 223: 209: 166: 151: 137: 97: 4255:

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

4634: 4612: 4522: 4445: 4429: 4376: 4336: 3843: 3522: 3286: 3271: 3231: 3207: 3135: 2951: 2925: 2598: 2508: 2270: 2253: 2236: 2217: 2196: 2157: 1960: 1945: 1892: 1814: 1792: 1758: 1704: 1681: 1666: 1596: 1588: 1330: 1263: 1019: 947: 875: 803: 731: 659: 607: 468: 437: 407: 353: 266: 194: 122: 2317:, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was 1874:

Howdy, all UCPs are "one of a kind" and I honestly don't believe a detailed and to be quite frank

1713:

Thanks, I'm on the last lap of Le Transloy so I'm mulling over Bazentin or Flers-Courcelette next.

4306: 4123: 4083: 3853: 3724: 3583: 3251: 2838: 2783: 2608: 1932: 1921: 1907: 1864: 1772: 1742: 1576: 500:

but only by using some inferior sources. There's a bit more to follow for the Background section.

329: 3477:

academy course on how to use the media-wiki mass message system in there we'd be in business :)

2978: 1409:

nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article,

995:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

923:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

851:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

779:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

707:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

242:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

189:

No worries - if I recall this would have just been a redirect after a file rename I did anyway.

170:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

4789: 3999: 3569: 3402: 2727: 2181: 2091: 1676: 1530: 1198: 583: 261:

As above, just a redirect after a file rename so fire at will (if it hasn't occurred already).

47: 17: 4034: 4623: 4593: 4577: 4238: 4046: 3684: 3623: 3618: 3454: 3247: 3029: 3024:

came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are

2882: 2877: 2823: 2818: 1390: 1235: 317: 1902:

the hard work you've put into the article - only if you're on the southside though hehehehe

4673:

a candidate for Military Historian of the Year 2015. For the Military history WikiProject,

4567: 4164:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4102: 3704: 3650: 3561: 3089:

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to

2544: 2429: 2383:

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to

2228: 2206: 1495:

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to

1411: 1070: 703: 688: 674: 626: 535:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

8: 4678: 4169: 3791: 3539: 3504: 3482: 3282: 3227: 3013: 2969: 2939: 2906: 2619: 2314: 2266: 2213: 2140: 1783: 1718: 1689: 1565: 1401:, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was 1398: 1290: 847: 832: 818: 647: 505: 487: 454: 423: 392: 372: 337: 107: 4797: 4414: 4391: 4360: 4318: 4119: 4007: 3849: 3779: 3720: 3410: 3021: 2735: 2526: 2499:

There are also further more formal steps that can be taken IRT dispute resolution (see

2474: 2437: 2099: 1975: 1917: 1903: 1860: 1768: 1738: 1730: 1572: 1420: 1278: 1243: 1206: 775: 760: 746: 305: 4072:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 2174:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve

463:

No worries, pls let me know when you are done and I'll have another look if you like.

4788:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

4630: 4608: 4518: 4425: 4372: 4332: 4145: 4136: 3998:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

3891: 3877: 3565: 3518: 3467: 3401:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

3267: 3203: 3183: 3174:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3131: 2921: 2895: 2726:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

2594: 2574: 2565:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2504: 2411: 2249: 2232: 2192: 2177: 2153: 2090:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

1941: 1888: 1853: 1810: 1788: 1754: 1731: 1700: 1662: 1642: 1633:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1592: 1547: 1394: 1326: 1259: 1197:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

1015: 1004: 943: 932: 871: 860: 799: 788: 727: 716: 655: 603: 579: 528: 464: 433: 403: 349: 262: 251: 190: 179: 118: 4402: 3886:

and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

3514:

Gday Keith. Sorry to disappoint but I don't actually know - I'm assuming WikiSource

4805: 4165: 4149: 4015: 3491: 3418: 2743: 2167: 2107: 1835: 1344: 1304: 1214: 3266:. Hopefully this helps, if you need clarification on any of this pls let me know. 4281: 3775: 3700: 3646: 3602: 3025: 2802: 2318: 1880: 919: 904: 890: 3736: 980: 979: