User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 13

8098:) or other similar constructions as it does not promote communication or trust. Please note that just because someone has reverted your edits does not make them a vandal. Nor is it necessarily wrong for them to provide you with a warning if they have legitimate concerns about your edits. I would suggest that your best way forward here is to discuss the issues directly with the editor in question in the first instance. I would also note that you also are not using edit summaries very often in your edits, so that might be part of the issue that the other editor is concerned about -- if you used clear edit summaries and provided reliable sources for your edits, it might make it clearer to the other person what you are attempting to achieve with your changes. You may then find some common ground. If this doesn't improve the situation then I would suggest you have a few options: work in other areas for a period to avoid the other editor for a while, or consider filing a request at 968:

focusing on discussing your proposal on the talk page. It seems that plenty of editors are involved, so there isn't any real need to advertise the discussion. That said, if you want more opinions, neutrally posted comments on project talk pages might be one way to achieve it. If you feel that isn't working, you might make a formal dispute resolution request. If you are concerned about behavioural issues, and have attempted to resolve them with the editors involved, you may consider ANI, but it should be a last resort. Potentially it is best just to focus on something non-controversial for a bit to give yourself some space to consider things clearly as you might see it differently in the cool light of day. Anyway, I'm sorry, it is late here and I have had a long day at work so it is time for bed. Tomorrow will be even longer. Regards,

693:. You mentioned that others had laid the groundwork before you improved the article, so I don't know if this applies to you or someone that worked on the article before you. Craven & Cate edited the 7 volume history of the (US) AAF in World War II. However, individual chapters have different authors. I believe that the better citation form is to include the chapter and author, not just the volume and editors. This article certainly has the earmarks of a higher rating, but I would have concerns about a citation in an A class or GA article that omits the author. The form citing to only an editor meets minimum standards, of course. Not a lot of works have this problem (Warnock's book on USAF contingency operations is similar, but who knows who wrote the entries in Maurer's books on US units and squadrons in WW II? 4311:

to Lead para. 1 line 1. The United Nations Command (UNC) is not the same as the United Nations (UN). The UNC was the multinational military force that supported South Korea during the Korean War. The UN is an intergovernmental organization. d. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 3. “US” is used twice. e. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 4. “capital Pyongyang” should be “North Korean capital at Pyongyang.” f. Refer to Battle|187th RCT airdrop at Sukchon and Sunchon, 20–21 October 1950. In para. 2 line 1, Songnani-ni is Songnam-ni. In para. 2 line 2, Chany-ni is Chang-ni. A simple cross-check of the Google Earth Map Set KMZ Files found on the Korean War Project website allowed me to catch this error during one of my earlier revisions, which is now deleted. I suspect a copy-paste OCR error in the original article.

3366:

Div. personnel were temporarily attached to other units that usually did not record their presence. For instance, Victoria University is informative regarding the sinking of the S.S. Chakdina, but their sources are Artillery Div. and Medical Div. records. None mention the Provost casualties or the loss of the S.S. Chantala two days later. During a previous investigation to clarify entries in an MP’s Middle East diary, I turned to the monthly Provost Div. Intelligence reports held by the Wellington Archive. They are simply cards with a brief line or two for each active day. Of the hundreds of cards that I reviewed, “Appendix B” was one of the few actions that Hayton or Jenkins saw fit to elaborate upon. Cheers.

2015:

have swung landward (not fixed as British seaward-facing guns at Singapore), and (b) Army forward artillery spotters set up an ad hoc radio relay system for the destroyers, whose tactical gunnery “powdered” German pillboxes that were unaffected by army artillery battery fire. - - - With regrets, I could not advance the article to GA status before my father died (a destroyer gun director at Normandy with its nose inside the “no-go” line to deliver direct fire support at Omaha – several success stories, one oft-told friendly-fire incident among Army historians – but Dad was not at Pont du Hoc, he was at a draw two bunkers to the east.)

2104:

this, though. Assessment or review comments are just someone's opinion. You, as the writer not required to action them; however, if you do not, you need to accept that it is unlikely that the assessor will feel their time well spent and will likely not continue to engage in the process further. Assessors -- myself included -- can be wrong, though, so it behoves all of us to try to see things from the others perspective (this is easier said that done, of course). We are all in a volunteer relationship here. Anyway, I'd suggest that if there are points of contention, potentially they could be resolved through obtaining a formal

649:

this article and I couldn't see an edit by me on the talk page -- did I respond on WP:MHA and forgot to update the talkpage? That's possible -- sorry, I have bad memory. (I had a head injury many years ago and still have trouble with short term memory. I'm fine if it can make its way into long term, but getting it there is sometimes problematic). Anyway, I have had a quick look and would be happy to update it to B class if you can address the Cn tag next to the casualty figure in the infobox. Ideally, I'd suggest adding these figures to the body of the article (potentially in the Aftermath). Regards,

7714: 6586: 4533: 3798: 217: 1932: 3809: 2971: 2301: 1474: 1426: 118: 3645:- The second question is more difficult for me to sort. The main body of the article on the American War is divided into eight sections. These stretch for ten screens on my browser. Strategy and commanders stretches over six screens. To minimize linking according to reader interest would suggest once in the Introduction, once in each major article division, once for 5-northern war sections, once for 3-southern war sections, once in American strategy, and once in British strategy. And no more. -?- 8528: 7725: 7699: 7207: 6559: 5901: 5875: 5829: 5341: 5243: 4502: 3903: 3871: 3819: 3771: 2981: 2263: 1484: 1440: 206: 128: 3379: 31: 8503: 7688: 7196: 6538: 5808: 5222: 4491: 3750: 2946: 2242: 1405: 107: 1209: 3015: 164: 146: 8514: 6597: 6549: 5819: 5323: 5289: 5233: 4544: 3893: 3853: 3761: 2957: 2253: 1416: 228: 8652: 7804: 7310: 6751: 5923: 5411: 5004: 4617: 4010: 3096: 2376: 304: 6157: 9072: 8818: 8337: 8276: 8224: 4367: 8023: 5646: 5636: 8609: 7769: 7272: 6694: 5388: 4586: 4333:

subjective criticisms should have been accompanied by objective recommendations before you wiped out two months of my work. Although I found multiple issues with the original Battle of Yongju article on 18 September, I did not delete anything of substance. My good faith revisions and additions to the article may have been wordy, but they were factually correct, well documented, backed up by citation, and properly written/punctuated.

3962: 3069: 277: 7873: 6816: 5958: 4048: 3142: 6285:

RAR-held hill") . This leads me to another point -- please be careful with English variation. Your changes to Samichon have remove many words which are actually acceptable in Australian English. "Indirect fires" is correct in Australian English, as is "divisional" level, on going, entrenching tool, anti-communist, counter-attack, etc. Your changes largely have changed to US English, which I don't think is an improvement. Regards,

2462: 8959: 7914: 7542: 6961: 6426: 6317: 5690: 4799: 4135: 3419: 2600: 1819: 789: 5890: 5312: 3882: 1463: 5011: 5864: 5278: 3842: 3276: 2290: 195: 1097:, I am waiting for you to rectify the wheelbase and width figures, which are inconsistent between the body and the infobox. You will also need to add the curb weight to the body of the article. Some discussion of the vehicle's performance (critical assessment or otherwise) might be in order, also, if it can be reliably sourced. For the infobox figures, I would suggest just making them consistent with this source: 8576: 7736: 7226: 6608: 5359: 4555: 3921: 3034: 2312: 1503: 246: 8013: 2168:, scanning captions only. Viz, I replaced the former image at ‘Native Americans’ picturing the artists’ queue of two-dozen American uniform varieties, without a recognizable Indian among them. It now features a diad portrait display of one Iroquois-Mohawk regular British Army colonel with Huron allies, and one Iroquois-Mohawk regular Continental Army colonel with Oneida allies. Hah, Ooorah, and Cheers! 8495: 8095:

your edits to multiple articles, however, potentially there is a valid reason for this. As such, I would suggest that in the first instance you start communicating with the other editor to determine what their concerns are. Have you attempted this yet on their talk page or some other venue? I would also ask that please refrain from using language such as "biased Indian" (as you did here:

7680: 7188: 6530: 5856: 5270: 4483: 3834: 2938: 2234: 1397: 187: 3642:- Lord North, for instance is a 'player' across the article's length, from introduction to Aftermath when he is part of a coalition Ministry with "Honest Billy" Pitt the Younger. Surely the link to a name or place must be repeated every major division, Introduction, Background, War breaks out, Strategy and commanders, Revolution as civil war, Global war and diplomacy, and Aftermath? Yes? 8425: 5571: 408: 8876:

the time and thinking about how you might improve your interactions with others and editing style before requesting an unblock. Also, please stop referencing people's race or nationality in your posts. It is not necessary or relevant. Equally, labelling someone a vandal when they are not is a personal attack and you should refrain from it. Regards,

1357:

bibliographic details of each company/squadron history on their article pages -- these are usually available for ordering through most decent city council libraries. These might be of assistance to you. For instance, Bernard Callinan's work on the 2/2nd and 2/4th, Chris Wray's work on the Commandos in Timor, etc.

8146:

passages in question were clearly not referring to the processed foodstuff. Furthermore, I found a number of other edits which I tried to AGF initially as they seemed helpful, if misguided. Closer examination revealed that a lot of this editor's edits were difficult to AGF for. An example is a recent one in

2825: 8870:

G'day, Avenello, please stop posting this on my talk page. It is not the place for these conversations. I do not have the time to get involved as I am travelling with work. If you have concerns about editor behaviour and haven't been able to resolve it through discussion between the involved editors,

8855:

about it, which makes me suspect that they're more interested in wiki-hounding me than in editing in good faith or generally collaborating with other editors. I will note that this editor had already been blocked for similar behavior last month. In the meantime, I'll leave things be. They've reverted

4896:

Hi. Thanks again for your excellent work on expanding articles on Australian cricketers. If you have time and/or are interested, please could you take a look at the following pages. They have all been nominated for deletion, but was wondering if you had any extra info about any of them. Note this is

4310:

a. There are still 15 incorrect references to “Yongju” in the latest revision as of 05:00, 12 November 2020. Refer to my Yongyu Versus Yongju entry on the Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page. b. GPS coordinates are in error. 39°18’17.9”N 125°35’59.02”E is the correct LAT/LONG for Yongyu, North Korea. c. Refer

4240:

G'day AR, as you know, I am working on Charles Green's article, and have been looking at the 3 RAR October 1950 battle articles. The Battle of the Apple Orchard has had a LOT of recent stuff added, and is no longer GA quality due to plenty of UNDUE detail and is now overbalanced with US stuff. I hate

3665:

provides the guidance here and generally I would recommend steering away from duplicate links; however, sometimes I have seen some acceptance of the need for a repeat link in very long articles. That is a view, though, that does not necessarily have broad acceptance and I wouldn't recommend repeating

3547:

of our target audience at Knowledge, the visual string of adjacent commas can be distracting. The traditional American scholarly literary conventions do not seem to fit the modern reader's scan that is now widely practiced, adapted to a comparatively spare typesetting convention online, so to speak,

2103:

G'day, sorry for the slow reply. Unfortunately, I don't have much time during the week these days as I am away from home due to work. Hoping to be back home in a week or so, but soon after that I have to go away on a course. Regarding the article, I don't know enough to comment, I'm sorry. I will say

648:

G'day, Robin, I hope you are well. I believe I have fixed the campaignbox -- please let me know if that still isn't working for you. It might be something that needs adjusting with the template itself, but on my screen it seems to be collapsed now. Regarding assessment, sorry I don't recall assessing

8875:

or post a request at a central board for administrator assistance. However, from a quick scan of your edits there are definite concerns, so I would suggest that potentially it would be best for you to take a break for a bit and cool down. Given that you are currently blocked, I would suggest taking

8094:

G'day, I'm sorry but none of those diffs make it clear to me that the other other editor is a "vandal" as you put it or that immediate admin action is required (although it may be necessary later if issues continue). I agree that there is potentially an issue with the fact that they may be following

7378:

I've been slogging through this when I can, but it IS a slog. I've already corrected at least one far-too-close paraphrase in one section, removed cites that don't say what the article claims they say, and so on. Lots of dead links, too, meaning I can't verify some of the stuff on there. Just wanted

6187:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of

4324:

Your removal of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s war diary entries contained in the US Army Command and General Staff College’s Combat Studies Institute Battlebook on the Battle of Sukchon-Sunchon and the Kirland/Pears Korea Remembered references on the Battle of the Apple Orchard that

4320:

As far as Peacemaker67’s reference to the insertion of geographical coordinates into the text is concerned, Temple’s map of the Airborne Attack on Sukch’on and Sunch’on in the Battle section is too small to locate terrain features, even when enlarged. In retrospect, there may be some unnecessary GPS

4303:

It seems that your word count requirement, which I believe was the basis for Peacemaker67’s reverting the Battle of Yongyu article to Illegitimate Barrister’s earlier version, has resulted in an error-plagued article. This reversion was not proofread or error-checked before it was published. I don’t

2799:

G'day, Ian, cheers. Hope you are having a relaxing weekend. It's been a pretty hectic six months or so here. Hopefully the worst of it has passed, but who knows. I would like to get back into article writing or reviewing at ACR a bit more, but I think it will have to wait for a bit -- I am away from

2145:

I sorted the ARW Talk page to just three items. There are two pending ARW Archives, one for ‘DONE items’ in an ‘Archive 23’, another for the (lengthy, wall-of-words) ‘Review Aug 12-22 2020’. I’ve done it successfully before for three previous archives. I’m just awaiting approval from completion four

8120:

With "biased Indian" I referer that I believe that user was acting in a blatantly biased way and that he was from India, and his behavior was possible because some "tropical things "rivalry", but he participates in Los Angeles Wikiprojects and uses an user page's infobox about native-level Spanish.

6250:

G'day, yes I disagree with the change -- no source that I know of would use such a construction as "the 2 RAR" or the "3 RAR" in that manner (when used as a noun group). Personally, I would simply ignore the MOS on this as it is a very minor point, and adding the definite article here is worse than

2193:

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and

1602:

article for a run at A-class. One of the pieces of the puzzle I'm trying to clarify is when the Army Reserve armoured units switched from operating M113s to become 'light cavalry' units with unprotected vehicles and Bushmasters. Our articles on these units say that this happened in about 2006-2007,

3365:

Hi Rupert, The ‘imbalance’ of words that you mention has caused me concern too. This would be less of an issue if the 1914-90 section contained more content which, for my part, has been difficult to find. Obviously, I refrain from personal comment to illustrate this dilemma. Unfortunately, Provost

3341:

G'day, thanks for your message. I will leave it up to you to do as you see fit, but IMO the incident is a single day in the history of an organisation that spans over 100 years and should be dealt with accordingly. To replicate such a large block quote seems an undue level of detail. For instance,

8740:

I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of WikiProject Australia, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the

8411:

article up to 'start' status. I really appreciate the feedback. I've added several sources where you put 'add citation'. Hopefully they are satisfactory. I'm unsure whether they are, because they're staff profiles and directories from the institutions where Bosworth has worked. I think this isn't

8246:

am now looking through some of AA's recent edits. I don't regard this as hounding, and am concerned about their rationale for editing and interacting with others here, as well as their command of the finer points of English. I don't mind that they've deleted my warning - it still stands. I advise

7399:

G'day, thanks for your efforts -- I know what you mean. I'd like to think we could save this article as it seems an important topic, but the more I look, the more issues emerge, I'm sorry to say. You are doing a great job, though. I'd like to help out a bit more, but my time will be more limited

2014:

did not have enough references to the Medal of Honor winner infantrymen. Lots of my images were taken down, oh, well, Knowledge is collaborative. It was a JOINT OPERATION in the best sense: (a) Army air spotters for the grand tactical battleship bombardment immobilizing shore batteries that might

4332:

This was my first major Knowledge article revision (and thanks to you, it will probably be my last) so I expect critiques, not wholesale deletions. Examination of my User talk:Charles Shaulis page shows that I was allowed to correct errors that Users Dianaa and Renata caught. In my opinion, your

4328:

I found the original Knowledge article during my study of Roy Appleman’s description of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s operations at Sukchon and Sunchon in his book, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu: United States Army in the Korean War: June – November 1950. Google Search

1356:

I hope you are well. Unfortunately, I couldn't readily find anything with a quick search at the NAA; a more involved search is probably beyond my brain capacity at the moment, I'm sorry. I am away from home at the moment, so don't have any of my books. However, I believe that I have included the

715:

Historians commonly cite the USAAF official history as simply 'Craven & Cate' due to the complexity of handling different authors for each chapter, so this is consistent with what RS use. It's also OK to cite the individual chapter authors - I've done both in articles I've worked on, but now

7879:

I present this adorable little fluff ball to you as thanks for helping to initiate me into Knowledge. Just as owners clean up after their pets, you fixed a lot of my mistakes. I hope I will continue to be as curious as that kitten (which I may want to steal), and thank you for your kindness and

6284:

G'day, the difference with your example here is that it is the full unit name, not the abbreviation. In Australia we would say, the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, or just "2 RAR". The abbreviation would never have a definite article unless used as an adjectival reference (e.g. "the 3

4263:

G'day, I've been thinking the same myself recently, but have been mulling it over as my involvement on Knowledge is waning so I am loathe to get too deeply involved. Also, unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to edit it in any great deal to rectify any real issues that might need

3596:

for figures under 10,000 as a convention throughout the article? Care can be taken to avoid confusing dates and figures by immediately identifying a number in the narrative. For example, were casualties somewhere to amount to 1,776, the date would be rendered 'In 1776', but the number would be

8145:

with "cocoa," its processed derivative. Upon seeing their edit, I did look at their history. Typically I do this out of curiosity and usually results in no further action. However, I found that the editor made a number of edits at other articles replacing "cacao" with "cocoa," even though the

4336:

I believe that 40 years of US military and federal government experience in technical writing, more than a passing knowledge of Korean War military history from an American perspective, as well as having a father (deceased) who as a 24-year-old USAF 1st Lieutenant flew a C-119 that dropped US

3325:

With respect, I note your concern about including a large transcription re the sinking of the Chantala. I also considered the size of the block; however, I see no benefit in condensing Hayton's own words, thereby (possibly) reinterpreting his meaning and intent. I suggest this is a quite rare

967:

G'day, I'm sorry I don't have much time or energy for these sorts of topics -- and frankly need to reduce the stresses in my life at the moment. Broadly, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about tagging -- in this case a couple of editors appear to have reverted the tag, so I'd suggest just

8162:

without offering an adequate explanation in their edit summary. While it is true that I have followed this editor since, it is not out of any desire to harass them. Rather, whether well-intended or not, their edits seem to be damaging to the respective articles they engage with (such as

6056:

G'day, unfortunately, I don't think I will have much time next week due to the course I am on for work; then I am travelling for a bit in between other things. I may be able to take a look in a few weeks, but in reality I raised pretty much all the issues I saw during the ACR. Regards,

3639:(4) I know of a caution not to over-link, with the rule of thumb to link a name or place only at the first mention. But in a lengthy article such as ARW, readers may come to the page for just one area of interest, and click on the TOC for direct access. There are several considerations. 8763:

G'day, Ruby, sorry for the delayed response. I have been caught up with work for a while. I am afraid that I don't have an interest in that topic and do not wish to get involved with it; hopefully someone else at the Australia project will be able to assist you. All the best. Regards,

3603:

offers some guidance here, which seems to support the "1500" above, although I probably wouldn't recommend this if it makes the article inconsistent or requires elegant solutions to avoid confusion. My usual practice would be to use the comma for any figure with four or more numerals.

935:

Hello, I am experiencing unacceptable behaviour from another editor, one JoelB.Lewis, and seek admin advice. They prematurely closing a discussion I had opened on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then, clearly following me, removed a 'Disputed' tag from an unassociated article

7491:

G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article; unfortunately I do not have ready access to many of the sources used as I am away. I will only be editing sporadically for the foreseeable future, so I couldn't really assist. I could probably assist in early 2022, sorry. Regards,

7091: 5172: 3706:

Also a couple of useful edits from, a Brit?, who pings the article at each contribution rationale. He's unhappy with the simple 7th-grader prose. Of course, that same critique can also be interpreted as a virtue: Knowledge-accessible to the international general reader with

3687:

G'day, sorry for the delayed response; been a hectic week at work. I have offered some opinions above; these are just my opinions, though. Ultimately, my advice would be to seek consensus for any potentially controversial changes on the article's talk page first. Regards,

1046:

I can't complain because others are doing it far tougher -- but I really miss being at home at the moment. My second youngest lost her first tooth yesterday and I wasn't home to leave a coin under her pillow. Thankfully, the tooth fairy did it for me, though. ;-)

2149:

I reported the upbeat developments at Project Military history assessment requests on the ARW Talk page, and posted my intent to ‘sort’ the sections & sub-sections into five groups, following the exchange between myself and ‘Hawkey7’. Notably including #4.

3702:

Many thanks, friend. More to do on several fronts, but I am hopeful of a Project B-status by late next week. Besides yourself, thank you again, the article has importantly found a collaborating editor, apparently Canadian or Canadien, for narrative style and

2157:

I am particularly pleased with the images supporting the adjacent text throughout. I'm particularly proud to have found a little-used portrait of King George III in his handsome parliamentary robes used at his announcement for American independence in a

9121: 4750: 988:

Thanks for your revert to the edit on the Australian Army article. I suspect that this is related to the recent vandalism of other articles on the ADF where the number of personnel and various types of equipment are being exaggerated. I blocked

8856:

all my edits anyway, so I'll just avoid dealing with them lest they draw me into an edit war which I want no part of. All I ask is that this editor leave me alone and if they must engage with me for whatever reason, to please do so politely. --

2552:

Both Conways and Dittmar give the later launch date for this ship. It would appear that the dates for her and AE2 have been transposed. Given that AE1 is likely to be have been launched before AE2 I will go with the official Australian site

4767:

are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it!

605:, which was deleted as an abandoned draft? It consisted of a single (promotional) quote sourced to a YouTube page about the "Wranglerstar family" of "modern day homesteaders". Probably not much help in creating an article, IMO. Regards, 6251:

starting a sentence with a numeral, IMO. One is grammatically incorrect that will stick in the ear of the reader; the other is an esoteric Knowledge note that the average reader won't be aware of. Anyway, I have adjusted it as follows:

4943:

G'day, I've taken a quick look and couldn't find much, I'm sorry. Added a nom roll entry for Cooper. Warden's parents' names could be sourced to a Queensland government source, but it isn't really significant coverage that I could see:

491:

article a few days ago, but you've beaten me to it (and done an excellent job). I'll look to add some more material. Edward J. Drea's book is excellent on this topic, and explains how codebreaking was central to the operation. Regards,

2898:

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page

5543:, I wanted to let you know that there will be an Australia/New Zealand Online Community Celebration of Knowledge's 20th Birthday on Friday 15 January 2021 from 7.00–8.30pm AEDT (6.30pm SA, 6pm QLD, 5.30pm NT, 4pm WA). If interested, 948:

Unfortunately, they've again removed the Disputed tag, despite the discussion on the Talk page still continuing. Obviously it's important the tag remain there while the discussion is ongoing, including to draw others to the debate.

2335: 6216:

I added definite articles to avoid starting sentences with numbers (numerals) per MOS. When spelled out, the units do have them already. So, if you still disagree, feel free to revert, but then how do you fix the numbers?

6130:

G'day, Philly jawn, sorry for the late reply -- currently away from home with work and haven't had time for Knowledge this week. It appears the right decision has been made and the references added to the article. Regards,

6624: 2065:

round and round about his distinction between Infobox ‘belligerent’ and ‘combatant’. The distinction is reflected in the Infobox. More round and round, he quit. No further review beyond the Infobox, having thus become

4461: 2758:

is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team,

5198: 4325:

contains Australian Maj. Gen. (Ret) David Matheson Butler’s recollections of the battle when he was the 3 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment’s 9 Platoon C Company commander detracts from the detail of the battle.

625:

I believe you assessed this as a B but it doesn't seem to be reflected in the article; not sure why. Also, do you know how I can collapse the War of the Spanish Succession campaignbox? Its doing my head in :). Tx.

8587: 4264:

resolution; however, I would be supportive of reversion back to its GA standard and then a discussion of things that need improvement in order to establish consensus regarding the approach to be taken. Regards,

7322: 4756: 3571:

offers some guidance; however, as a general rule it is best to avoid changing date formats in established articles unless they are inconsistent. Date format is one of those points that can often lead to angst.

1114:

Sorry, I will be offline for a couple of days, due to work -- I will check back in on the article when I can, and will try to help with these last couple of issues. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards,

3936: 3326:

communication. Unfortunately, there is little record of the activities and service of NZ Military Police from 1914-90. This is not the fault of Wiki contributors; the NZ Army archives are equally vacuous.

4762: 2388: 4601:, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding 7087: 3251:

G'day, sorry, I've been meaning to take a look for awhile now, but I've been pretty busy with work and am now away on course. I have an hour or so tonight, though, so will try to take a look. Regards,

8050: 7867: 6665: 4777: 4394:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2188: 7083: 6798: 7063: 6269:

I don't speak AuE, but in AE, I would say by way of analogy, "The 101st Airborne", not "101st Airborne", to start a sentence. Again, if spelled out, the articles are needed, so not so strange.

2639: 2631: 2615: 4321:

coordinates (Hong Kong, for example), but GPS links to the features in Google Map’s satellite and terrain views in the absence of detailed topographical maps were most helpful to my research.

6457: 6441: 6348: 6332: 5423: 5111:

G'day, George, I have deleted the accidentally created review page now and reset the nom on GAN page -- hopefully that has fixed the matter. I will see if the bot has a conniption. Regards,

4830: 4814: 4166: 4150: 8247:

everyone to ensure they only comment or act on edits, and not on personal attitudes or biases, or through vindictiveness. Let's work together folks to improve this encyclopaedia, based upon

7439: 7103: 5721: 5705: 3450: 3434: 2195: 5589:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between October and December 2020.

7891: 1850: 1834: 586:

Hi there, I was going to create an article titled as such, but it shows you deleted on in 2017. As I am unsure of the nature of the page you deleted, I thought I should reach out to you.

8088: 6071:

No worries. I am most appreciative of the work you have already put in. I reckon that your work on the ACRs for this and Heraklion were the most helpful reviews I have had since you and

2723:

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

2217: 2006:, etc. Since then I’ve gained some facility at the Harvard reference coding, the main thing holding back my articles then. I promise to 'return to the scene of the crime' again one day. 8443:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between January and March 2021.

7816: 7573: 7557: 6992: 6976: 3517: 2623: 1939: 8990: 8974: 7706: 6449: 6340: 4822: 4633: 4410: 4158: 4026: 3233: 2755: 2200: 1593: 820: 804: 426:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 13 reviews between April and June 2020.

7748: 3620:(3) In the article Notes, if the source of the entire Note is the same as the footnote adjacent, should the footnote be made a second time within the brackets of the following Note? 7945: 7929: 7059: 6038: 5713: 3442: 7253: 6775: 6646: 3127: 9094: 6037:

Hi AustralianRupert. You generously reviewed this at ACR. It is now at FAC and I wonder if you would care to look at it again to see to what extent it meets this higher standard?

5534: 4380: 3209: 1842: 6794: 7565: 7053: 6984: 6108:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 4174: 3896: 3864: 3860: 3856: 2448: 2403: 6026: 4678: 4112: 8982: 5729: 5528: 812: 7463:

Howdy hello! I just finished expanding the lead, and see that you are the majority editor. The article is in pretty good shape, would you want to collaborate on taking it to

6763: 6676: 2845: 2194:

processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available

1587: 7937: 7367: 7283:

When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a

6889: 6728: 6631: 4457: 4037: 1858: 476: 8721: 3046: 1612: 392: 343: 7861: 5556: 1100:

as you have cited that in the body. That source also gives a different figure for the curb weight, which will need to be confirmed and remediated in the article. Regards,

320: 4567: 2357: 8460: 8415: 5606: 5561: 5445: 4436: 3720: 3675: 3657: 3346:

incident (ignoring the final paragraph in the section), but only 336 words to cover the post-World War II period in the next section. This gives the impression that the

3312: 3266: 2768: 2180: 2125: 1703:

G'day, Nick, it seems like you have it sorted. Unfortunately, nothing more came up in the book search, but J did a ProQuest search which produced some limited results :

828: 6566: 3236:, which I fear might soon be archived. I am happy to reciprocate anytime. If you have other stuff you would rather be doing that's okay. Just thought I'd ask. Regards-- 4465: 3697: 3632: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2324: 990: 443: 7414:

I understand. Quite a bit of it's outside my normal lane as well. Reviewing the citations and sourcing alone is a major effort, let alone required work on the prose.

5258: 5254: 5250: 4525: 4521: 4513: 4509: 4505: 7702: 7421: 7409: 7214: 7210: 5844: 5840: 5836: 5832: 4602: 3786: 3782: 3613: 3131: 2749: 1677: 1258: 1124: 1032:

Gee, you're doing well to be managing with any competent editing with those hours! My editing has suffered since the pandemic due to longer hours, but not that bad.

398: 339: 8936: 7218: 2282: 2278: 2274: 9145: 8563: 8559: 8555: 8551: 8547: 8543: 8539: 8535: 8531: 6779: 4351: 3581: 2775: 2504: 1515: 8885: 5120: 2926: 2744: 139: 135: 131: 8821: 8340: 8130: 8115: 7168: 7150: 6790: 6206: 6084: 6066: 5939: 4287: 4273: 4061: 4022: 2900: 2838: 2392: 8773: 7823:

was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

7728: 7663: 6140: 6117: 5166: 3812: 2694: 977: 8314: 7517: 7501: 6939: 6801: 6767: 5427: 4343: 2583: 1599: 347: 8865: 8188: 7506:

No worries, I totally understand, just thought I'd lay out the invitation :) If I haven't taken to it GA by next year I'll poke you again. Wish you the best!

6294: 6263: 2577: 2222: 2090: 1379: 921: 676: 658: 8396: 8279: 8227: 8202: 7634: 5943: 5431: 2809: 2700: 1546: 952:

I haven't yet restored the tag, as I don't wish to get into an edit war. However, I do not find this either goodwill or constructive, and await your advice.

8741:

article and provide me any feedback. I understand it's not your area of expertise, but any general feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you very much.

8434: 6512: 6191:

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit

5790: 5580: 4987: 4973: 4956: 4471: 3732: 3168: 3115: 2399: 557: 417: 352:

all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles

8293: 8260: 7386: 6895: 6620: 6146: 5089:

I went to add a comment to this review, misclicked, and didn't know the unclick. If you could fix the nom, it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

4742: 3260: 2717: 2039:

I wonder if the reviewer was just not serious in the first place. He began as though he were trying to pick a fight, and he never did survey much beyond –

1784: 1762: 1744: 1712: 1691: 1634: 1183: 1166: 1152: 1138: 1109: 1056: 1041: 1027: 739: 602: 516: 7082:. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at 6403: 5204: 3286: 2523:

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

1528: 258: 209: 8737: 8598: 7160: 7127: 6901: 6840: 6836: 4606: 4033: 2787: 2205: 1721:, mentions M113s being withdrawn and armoured mobility and recon roles within Regular and Reserve units being taken over by ASLAV and Bushmaster variants 328: 5784: 5140: 4885: 1385: 1345: 7238: 6409: 5540: 5441:. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). 4694: 4229: 3505: 953: 293: 8636:

network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a

7176: 6578: 6518: 1913: 725: 9045: 8779: 8412:

ideal, but they are the sources best placed to confirm his positions at these institutions and I have struggled to find other sources. Thanks again!

7047: 6184: 6092: 3778: 3556:(1) Is there a convention acceptable to the Military history Project that allows for changing all dates from the two-comma ‘May 25, 1780,’ format to 8483: 8239: 8044: 7628: 4945: 2514: 1539: 89: 8517: 8408: 8000: 6832: 6570: 6300: 6270: 6245: 6224: 4295: 4250: 3790: 3774: 3295:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 16 reviews between July and September 2020.

3227: 2716:

for October 22, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at

883: 575: 7668: 7451: 5377: 5185: 2540: 8698: 7838: 7344: 6866: 6600: 6278: 6252: 6236: 6003: 5505: 4728: 4655: 4089: 3764: 3534: 3186: 2425: 1564: 767: 369: 8056: 7438:

article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will

5179: 4241:

seeing AC's stuff being degraded like this. I have a good mind to restore it to the September version, which is pretty good. What do you think?

3822: 2903:. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.-- 9015: 7970: 7598: 7017: 6848: 6482: 6373: 5754: 5673: 5544: 4855: 4782: 4199: 3475: 2664: 1883: 1668:

p. 262 might have something, but no date according to my other half. Joanna says she will check a couple of my other books tomorrow. Regards,

1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1419: 1240: 853: 702: 231: 8374: 8069:", that was recently edited by he before I edited it. He justs vandal every other recent edits made by me and puts Warn templates in my talk ( 1018:

G'day, Nick, no worries -- will keep an eye out. On 12 hour shifts now, though, so don't have much brain power for anything complex. Regards,

121: 8703: 7843: 7349: 7135: 6871: 6844: 6771: 6008: 5904: 5878: 5667: 5510: 4978:

You, too. We are having barbeque prawns, ham, and a pavlova for Christmas lunch. Hope you have a safe and enjoyable day. Take care. Regards,

4660: 4118: 4094: 3906: 3874: 3402: 3191: 2974: 2430: 1749:

No worries, I have the afternoon off, thankfully. My wife has also sent me some photos of pages from Morison, so I might finally finish the

1569: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1172: 1080: 1012: 614: 374: 5344: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5304: 5300: 5296: 5292: 4304:

know its source, but it is a near-verbatim copy of the Battle of Yongju|Military Wiki| Fandom web page article. Who is the plagiarist here?

4002:

locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

2817: 1974: 1956: 1429: 8521: 7062:

begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the

1802: 1477: 961: 903: 335: 6574: 6050: 5246: 2844:

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly

2304: 2266: 8958: 8942: 7913: 7541: 7478: 6960: 6944: 6724: 6425: 6316: 5689: 5236: 4798: 4357: 4134: 3543:. I'm about eighty percent through a second read-through adding links for historical context. I am finding at ARW that if I envision the 3418: 3158: 3123: 2599: 1818: 1625:

G'day, Nick, unfortunately I can't check my books yet, but the following links might help to some extent (albeit they are not the best):

1272:

Where can I get information on the following from the NAA or AWM such as history. I can find images and personnel files, but no history.

1264: 788: 6562: 4930: 4706: 3359: 8750: 8693: 7833: 7525: 7339: 6861: 5998: 5500: 4650: 4517: 4084: 3181: 2984: 2420: 2204:

by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the

1559: 1433: 563: 364: 6657:

userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at

1094: 635: 7897: 7429: 6919: 6552: 6173: 5822: 5126: 2988: 2960: 2256: 1000: 772: 501: 8567: 4547: 3396: 8910: 6670:

place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions

1071:

Good evening (or day, depending on when you can read this), are you going to assess the article again or no need to see if it's B?

5131:

I think that's all of them done now (at least those on the list), let me know if any more need a review that haven't been listed.

5098: 4947:. Trove sometimes offers some newspaper articles that might help, but I think they may have already been tapped already. Regards, 1995:

which features three retired cops and a currently serving woman boss. Great good stuff. “From all of us to all of you, Cheers!”

9110: 7373: 3529: 2964: 3245: 1647: 527: 9011: 8628:. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the 7966: 7594: 7013: 6478: 6369: 5750: 4851: 4195: 3471: 2660: 2454: 1979: 1879: 849: 9119:

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

9051: 9019: 8488: 7974: 7673: 7602: 7181: 7021: 6915: 6523: 6486: 6377: 5908: 5882: 5795: 5758: 5209: 4897:

not canvasing for the deletion discussions, but asking someone who has done excellent work in expanding these type of stubs.

4859: 4476: 4203: 3932: 3737: 3479: 2931: 2668: 2562: 2227: 1887: 1390: 857: 94: 81: 69: 64: 59: 8284:

OP now briefly blocked, TPA revoked, and they need to fix their attitudes to editing and to other editors once they return.

910: 9141: 8717: 8006: 7857: 7363: 7099: 6885: 6658: 6211: 6101: 6022: 5524: 4674: 4432: 4108: 3941:

any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a

3205: 2444: 2002:, About 10-13 years ago, you were very helpful in helping me improve several articles I had written when new to Knowledge, 1643: 1583: 1331: 1326: 1321: 388: 6784:

authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.

4450:... on February 28, 2021. Wikipediots can delay progress, but not avoid it in the long run. Not even Aussie Wikipediots. 1651: 4598: 4235: 2800:

home on course now until the end of the month so I can't take on too much at the moment. Anyway, all the best. Regards,

1316: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1296: 1291: 1286: 1281: 1276: 1066: 983: 539: 5189:" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! 2469: 1003:) for this yesterday and have seen similar IP vandalism, so it may be something to watch out for more broadly. Regards, 9060: 8352: 2270: 1639: 747: 1365:(the 1st through 2/8th are listed under "Independent companies" while 2/9th - 2/12th are listed under "Cavalry units". 8164: 2520: 2720:, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. 1728: 8468: 7514: 7475: 5614: 4317:

Please enlighten me on how using “subsequently” 44 times in the reverted article qualifies this as a Good Article?

684: 451: 8637: 8154:, and gave no explanation as to why in their edit summary aside from "redundancy." A similar instance occurred in 3623:

I would recommend doing so, yes, as the footnote in text and the note itself will potentially be read separately.

1363: 9137: 8713: 7853: 7359: 7095: 6881: 6232: 6018: 5520: 4670: 4428: 4104: 4068:

for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

3201: 2440: 2350: 2057:

made an off-handed deprecating remark about the article interpreting the “conditional, defensive” nature of the

1579: 1518:

to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).

755: 384: 5439:(defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) 2036:

with the recent reviewer. Over a ten-day span, he surveyed only one of eleven CATEGORIES of article improvement.

942:

Consequently, I posted a reasonably polite message on their Talk page requesting them to desist such behaviour:

8151: 4684: 3716: 3653: 3154: 2834: 2176: 2109: 2086: 889: 716:

usually use Craven & Cate given it seems to be the standard way of handling these works in the literature.

8167:). If anything, I only wanted to first document, then properly warn them of their actions before taking it to 7761:

for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

2919: 7108: 5629: 4891: 994: 7264:

userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

4329:

returned the Battle of Yongju, which resulted in my original 18 September Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page entry.

542: 8932: 8881: 8769: 8392: 8310: 8111: 7497: 7405: 7146: 6828: 6290: 6259: 6136: 6062: 5970: 5162: 5116: 5070: 4983: 4952: 4738: 4445: 4403: 4269: 3693: 3671: 3628: 3609: 3577: 3355: 3256: 2805: 2573: 2121: 1919: 1758: 1708: 1673: 1630: 1375: 1254: 1179: 1148: 1120: 1105: 1052: 1023: 973: 930: 917: 735: 654: 610: 553: 512: 472: 2778:, especially gratifying coming from someone I -- and a great many others -- rank so highly... :-) Cheers, 2067: 8591: 8096: 7456: 6192: 4714: 4637: 4415: 3648:

What is ‘best practice’ for our 'international general reader online' at the Military history Project? -

2709: 2701: 1962: 1199: 710: 482: 6716:

When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at

6713:

range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.

6623:

is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a

6169: 4751:

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

2171:

I’ll begin sorting today, although I still have to work in the garage for my ‘honey-do’ list this week.

8839:. They reverted an edit on a page I had worked on yesterday, which is all fair and good. But then they 8641: 7418: 7383: 6032: 5985: 5974: 3995: 3540: 3350:

incident is more important than several decades of history, even if that isn't the intention. Regards,

2727: 2524: 2510: 2029: 1233: 748: 47: 38: 17: 7090:(examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the 2486:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 8906: 8804:

blanks his talk with Tag alert of 'Manual revert' (he strongly avoid see my messages for some reason)

8159: 6900:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

6177: 4901: 4347: 3712: 3682: 3649: 2172: 2154:. More to follow, with Talk page ‘fair warning’ foreshadowed by the copy-pastes of the Svejk74 posts. 2098: 2082: 754:

You assessed this on the request for assessment page, but I believe you missed making the changes on

620: 581: 5400: 4029:

from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.

2025: 894:

Where would I be able to find a history of AIB / ISD / SOA from the National Archives of Australia?

8727: 7067: 3164: 2908: 2011: 8030: 7400:

next week due to work requirements and it is a topic that is well outside my usual lane. Regards,

1767:

Sounds like fun! I'm planning to spend a cold and wet afternoon finishing off a re-working of the

730:

G'day, gents, thanks – I have added the chapter author now. Hopefully, I got that right. Regards,

507:

Thanks, Nick, your additions look fantastic. Thanks for taking a look at Chronicle, too. Regards,

8861: 8358: 8184: 7887: 5094: 3373: 3111:

has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.

2918:Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from 2105: 1730:-- shows some ARES cav units as recon (light cav) while a couple remain as APC regiments (p. 424) 8784:

Help!, the Latino guy is there again, is prosecuting my person and making disruptive editing!!!

7249:

has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.

2081:

can you make a review, or can you make a referral for us to someone other than the last fellow?

1171:

G'day, sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. It has been re-assessed as B class, per this edit:

9025: 8827:

I came across a few instances of the OP here making disruptive editing, the most notable being

8812: 8448: 8331: 8270: 8218: 8198: 8126: 8084: 7980: 7640: 7608: 7435: 7164: 7131: 7027: 6492: 6383: 6080: 6046: 5764: 5594: 5194: 5173:

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

4916: 4865: 4773: 4690: 4283: 4246: 4209: 3485: 3215: 3119: 3059:

1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created

2764: 2674: 2490: 2481: 2407: 2213: 2159: 1970: 1952: 1893: 1222: 863: 431: 8629: 8361:, reminding me of Churchill's eloquent phrase (of which he had plenty). I didn't know of the 8928: 8877: 8851: 8846: 8841: 8835: 8829: 8803: 8798: 8794: 8790: 8786: 8765: 8746: 8733: 8388: 8306: 8210:

the guy does the work blatantly with the rest of my edits in Mexican Spanish diaspora article

8209: 8107: 8076: 8071: 8061: 7758: 7754: 7493: 7415: 7401: 7394: 7380: 7142: 7117: 7079: 6286: 6255: 6228: 6132: 6113: 6105: 6094: 6058: 5158: 5136: 5112: 4979: 4948: 4734: 4391: 4265: 3689: 3667: 3624: 3605: 3573: 3351: 3252: 2801: 2569: 2474: 2117: 2113: 2003: 1754: 1704: 1669: 1626: 1371: 1250: 1227: 1175: 1144: 1116: 1101: 1048: 1019: 969: 957: 913: 763: 731: 698: 650: 606: 549: 508: 468: 3808: 2970: 2300: 1473: 1425: 117: 8918: 8902: 8527: 8456: 8289: 8256: 7724: 7698: 7257: 7206: 6909: 6650: 6558: 6220: 5900: 5874: 5828: 5602: 5340: 5242: 4501: 4453: 4402:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3951: 3902: 3870: 3818: 3770: 3511: 3451:

Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

3320: 3308: 2980: 2262: 1483: 1439: 439: 205: 127: 5973:

will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The

3014: 163: 145: 8: 9128: 9086:

This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

8155: 7793: 7457: 7299: 7288: 6274: 6202: 5154: 3525: 3392: 2737: 2558: 2498: 1362:

Also, the following archive url will take you to the landing page for the AWM histories:

1341: 899: 672: 631: 488: 6912:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 9033: 8857: 8370: 8243: 8180: 7988: 7883: 7616: 7035: 6500: 6391: 5772: 5106: 5090: 5025: 5021: 4873: 4217: 3978: 3493: 3108: 3054: 2783: 2682: 2536: 2391:

is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the

2361: 2058: 2049:

opening post he declared for partisan speech-writer and some-time popular press author

1901: 1750: 871: 8513: 6596: 6548: 5818: 5322: 5288: 5232: 4543: 3892: 3852: 3760: 2956: 2507:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 2252: 1415: 1370:

I will endeavour to update the AWM links on the individual coy/sqn articles. Regards,

227: 9089:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.

9024:

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

8808: 8679:

instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the

8444: 8327: 8266: 8235: 8214: 8194: 8174: 8122: 8080: 8037: 7979:

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

7659: 7607:

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

7026:

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

6935: 6926:

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

6491:

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

6382:

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

6164: 6148: 6076: 6072: 6042: 5763:

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

5660: 5656: 5590: 5552: 5190: 5079: 4864:

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

4769: 4629: 4374: 4279: 4258: 4242: 4208:

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

4065: 3568: 3484:

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

3300: 2904: 2760: 2673:

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

2209: 1966: 1948: 1892:

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

1768: 862:

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

571: 535: 427: 316: 8836:

the inexplicable omission of two key events on the History of the New Spain template

8137:

Allow me to explain. As the other editor noted, I reverted an edit they had made to

7713: 6585: 4689:

Hi AustralianRupert, I just come across an issue that you may be able to help with.

4532: 3797: 216: 9041: 8893: 8758: 8742: 7996: 7624: 7043: 6786:

Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.

6508: 6399: 6125: 6109: 5780: 5148: 5132: 4881: 4724: 4702: 4632:

is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review

4422: 4387: 4225: 4071: 3987:'s block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a 3946: 3708: 3592:

format, ‘150,000’ and ’15,000’ and then ‘1,500’ --- or can the last be rendered as

3589: 3501: 3241: 3081: 2690: 2545: 1909: 1780: 1740: 1687: 1608: 1162: 1134: 1076: 1037: 1008: 879: 759: 721: 694: 497: 289: 7789: 6740: 6736: 6458:

Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

6349:

Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

3999: 3974: 3085: 8668: 8452: 8321: 8300: 8285: 8252: 8142: 7820: 7507: 7486: 7468: 7447: 7326: 7246: 6639: 5935: 5598: 5066: 3304: 3050: 1772: 690: 435: 8160:

restored their edit that was not properly capitalized and was misspelled besides

7379:

to drop by and say I appreciate the work you've done on the Korean War section.

7242: 6635: 4571: 3232:

for A-class, last year and I hoped that you would be willing to do the same for

1931: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8664: 8362: 7644: 6717: 6683: 6642:, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags. 6197: 5436: 4399: 3988: 3942: 3521: 3388: 3367: 3336: 3327: 2731: 2554: 2339: 2328: 2131: 2050: 1527:(template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a 1337: 895: 668: 643: 627: 522: 8830:

the removal of a useful and detailed infobox on the grounds of "Peruvian bias"

7084:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants

1538:(pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a 9029: 8924: 8680: 8382: 8366: 8168: 8103: 7984: 7612: 7075: 7071: 7031: 6710: 6496: 6387: 5768: 5370: 5017: 4911: 4869: 4575: 4395: 4314:

There are too many other errors to list in this forum, but you get the idea.

4213: 4000:

create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation

3489: 2794: 2779: 2713: 2678: 2532: 2365: 2139: 2138:

of the Irish Maritime Project in two posts, and a note of encouragement from

1897: 1521: 867: 596: 587: 266: 3977:

be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to

1965:, "about an Australian amphibious operation during the Second World War"! -- 1717:

Toal, Mick, 1 October 2007, "Land Warfare 2007: New life for old warhorse",

1208: 943: 8872: 8676: 8248: 8099: 7751:, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged. 7655: 7651: 7464: 7088:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists

6931: 6927: 6732: 6706: 6680: 5548: 5373: 4967: 4938: 4924: 4906: 4340:

So, what’ll it be? Word count or an informative description of the battle?

3984: 3296: 3223: 2135: 1535: 1524: 945:(n.b. He's 'closed' the post, so you'll have to click 'Show' to read it.) 567: 531: 262: 8732:

Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article

8502: 8402: 7946:

Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

7687: 7195: 6537: 5807: 5448:, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: 5221: 4490: 3749: 2945: 2241: 1404: 1098: 106: 9037: 8923:

G'day, if you wish for the file to be deleted, please add an appropriate

8633: 7992: 7620: 7295: 7039: 6905: 6504: 6395: 5776: 4877: 4720: 4698: 4221: 3662: 3497: 3378: 3237: 2686: 1905: 1776: 1736: 1698: 1683: 1659: 1620: 1604: 1158: 1130: 1088: 1072: 1033: 1004: 875: 717: 493: 8991:

Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

5978: 4406:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

9071: 7443: 5057: 4384:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3600: 2824: 1992: 1988: 288:

Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by

4307:

A casual perusal of this reversion found the following discrepancies:

2061:, that conforms to Mackesey and Richard B. Morris, both. I let it go. 8651: 8147: 8138: 8066: 7803: 7309: 7284: 7123:

What is the full form of "det. at" and what is the meaning of this ?

6750: 5977:

of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically

5922: 5410: 5080: 5033: 4616: 4366: 4009: 3095: 2375: 1682:

Thanks, I've checked my copy of Bou and he has some useful material.

303: 8152:

replaced a perfectly fine caption with a grammatically deficient one

6679:

concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with

5376:(duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a 4337:

paratroopers over DZ WILLIAM on 20 October, allow me to write this.

2461: 8625: 8022: 7872: 5645: 5635: 5053: 5045: 5041: 5029: 5003: 4965:

Hi! No worries - thanks for having a look. Have a great Christmas.

2546: 2033: 8051:

User going vandal and reverting without summaries my recent edits

7868:

A kitten for you! (from a gracious wet-behind-the-ears Wikipedian)

6993:

Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

6735:. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved ( 3234:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Pearl (1762)

2189:

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

1603:

but without sources! Do you know of any sources on this? Regards,

939:

for which I had opened a 'Disputed' discussion on its Talk page.

8899: 8608: 7768: 7271: 6815: 6693: 6039:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Battle of Rethymno/archive1

5957: 5889: 5863: 5387: 5311: 5277: 5010: 4585: 4167:

Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare

4047: 3961: 3881: 3841: 3141: 3068: 2289: 1462: 276: 194: 8621: 7639:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

7574:

Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

4419:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2851:

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

156: 5539:

As a fellow editor of Australian articles on Knowledge through

5049: 5037: 4409:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

3275: 8898:

I wanna know if you could delete the file KVER 2019 logo.jpg?

8575: 7735: 7298:

is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (

7225: 7120:"Squadron bases" section , there some remarks said "det. at". 6607: 5948:

post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people

5358: 4697:(somewhat dubious). Can you rollback changes and fix? Regards 4554: 4378:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

3920: 3033: 3019: 2311: 1502: 245: 8012: 2841:

about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

2142:, a ‘Downunder’ coordinator for the Military History Project. 821:

Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military

319:

of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee

8494: 8326:

Sir, please, stop making disruptive adminship procedures. --

7679: 7187: 6529: 5855: 5269: 4482: 3833: 2937: 2848:

to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

2233: 1396: 186: 4278:

No worries, I think I will. I hope things are OK with you?

3711:. Thanks again for the orientation, guidance, and leads. - 3025: 4997: 2070:.” Rats, I “jumped in the cage” with him. "My bad", and a 1594:

Conversion of Army Reserve armoured units to light cavalry

6831:, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 5468: 5060:, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! 2043:– which were promptly removed by the author of most – me. 2032:. Over the last two weeks, we’ve just run into a sort of 1991:, the TV show, and absolutely loved it. We’r now wathing 937: 601:

G'day, I believe you are referring to the draft article:

5535:

Knowledge turns 20 – Australia and New Zealand Celebrate

5450: 5177:

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "

4300:

To: Peacemaker67, Mztourist, and AustralianRupert Sirs:

3939:

administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection

3118:, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the 2837:

invites you to join us again this October and November,

2505:

Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton McWhorter III

2395:

and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

168: 7643:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 7141:

G'day, John, "det at" = "detachment at", IMO. Regards,

7060:

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

7054:

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

6904:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 6162:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

5486: 4390:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

3220:

Hello AustralianRupert, You were kind enough to review

3084:

now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (

2839:

the two months which are dedicated to improving content

2730:

from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks!

548:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking here. Regards,

174: 150: 8424: 6172:, is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to 5570: 4693:

seems to have been overwritten to create a article on

4636:

and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the

3707:

English-as-a-second-language, or, more pretentiously,

1600:

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service

1157:

Thanks for checking. Not sure if it's assessed again.

407: 8975: