User talk:AustralianRupert/Archive 9

3476:

took your advise about the dispute resolution tools but this is where the problem started. Ever since I informed the other person that a third opinion request and even further steps might by necessary, he started doing his utmost to eliminate me from the discussion. So far, he reported me twice on the admin noticeboard asking for 1 month block and at least two times unofficially on the talk pages of a page reviewer(Cameron11598) and another user taking part in the discussion(Laveol). Absolutely no actions were taken against me and his block request was denied. The page reviewer explained him that in his opinion I'm not vandalising anything and there is only a content dispute which is exactly what the other user told him and even warned him that he is the one with questionable edits. After he failed to get any support for temporary sanctions against me, suspending my account permanently became his last resort. On virtually every talk page he repeats that I'm sock puppeting and I'm behind any anonymous edit supporting my position. That forced me to ask for a semi-protection of a page which was enforced but that didn't make him stop. I asked him to reconsider his attitude towards me and apologise but he refused and continued to accuse me without any evidence. This has become so frustrating to me that I'm no longer able to focus on the discussions because I'm forced to answer his mechanically repeated groundless accusations all the time. In order to clear my name, I'm forced to ask for an investigation on my own account. Unfortunately, I couldn't find such option and therefore I'd like to ask you to check my account. I realise that this is a personal request but it's directly related to several discussions and my most basic user rights, blatantly violated by one person. Everything I write is removed by Tv Boy not because it's not true or there is no source but because "I'm socking and its just my personal opinion". I'll be happy to provide any type of information if you accept to help me. --

1938:

others. Regardless of whether I totally agree with all of the edits, I'm sure that they are being done with the best of intentions. Equally, I agree that some of these sources require care in the way they are being used. That said, I do not agree that wholesale removal is in Knowledge's best interests. Ultimately, I think a more nuanced approach would serve the encyclopedia's purposes better. For instance, where a potentially biased source forms the majority of the literature on a topic, I don't think that the encyclopedia is served well by completely gutting an article. Instead, a middle ground is possibly a better approach, whereby the commentary (e.g. sourced criticism / reviews) of the main source could in fact be included in the article with citations (albeit briefly), while the use of robust in text attribution could be used to ensure that Knowledge's voice isn't being used to echo potentially biased sources. Having said that, one thing I'm realizing is that many of my own reviews at A class probably haven't been as robust as they could have been and no doubt have not helped set your articles up for success as much as they potentially could have. For that you have my sincerest apologies. Nevertheless, if you disagree with an edit, please remember that you have the right to revert and request a discussion until consensus has been established. Reference the quote box, for such a short quote, it possibly is not needed, although I have used them on a couple of featured articles and feel that they can serve a purpose to break up a wall of text if there isn't an image available. Ultimately, the inclusion of a quote box is largely an editorial decision (rather than a policy one, I think), so if you disagree, it should be discussed with the pro and cons of the approach being presented/explored. Regards,

3494:

up, saying black to the white, simply inverting the things I gave you in order to prove yourself right. I told you milions of times why Liex and CSKA are not the same thing, why the page is called PFC CSKA Sofia, why there is no such name as "CSKA-Sofia", you just kept pushing even more aggressively. Yes, I called you a "fan troll" of a rival club just because this is what you are doing - refusing to take anything else and aggressively entering edit war regarding the rival team. I have managed to sort out the dispute with discussions, as I previously did with users Laveol and Chris Calvin, who had similar opinions as yours, I presented my opinions ad we reached a consensus of the page. Then you poped in, moving and changing gradually everything in a blink of an eye, I asked you to stop and discuss, you just kept reverting my edits, moving from article to article, paying no attention to what I give you, and saying in one of the discussion that you are a fan of PFC Levski Sofia, which is a rival club. Refusing to take anything in as arguments at all is fan trolling. If you stopped moving and entering the controversial info and looked at the consensus we previously established everything would have been fine, but no. Then dynamic IP's started following your every move and reverting my edits the same way as you and the same time as you. There is no way this is a coincidence, it

8228:

get time I will look at breaking down the history a little further. Thanks for the help. I know Captain Vanlandingham's award is well deserved. I got to the battalion aide station just as they were cutting all of his clothing off looking for a wound, because he was literally drenched in blood. As it turned out he did suffer permanent spinal injuries, but the blood all belonged to the Iraqi Soldiers that he carried to safety that day. He had been the embedded advisor to the 307th Iraqi National Guard Battalion for the entire deployment and those soldiers thought Captain Vanlandingham was larger than life. The Infantry Platoon that was assigned to escort Captain Vanladingham's Iraqi troops that day was handled roughly during this period and did not get the credit they deserved. We had an economy of force mission during this time. An entire armored cavalry squadron had been cut from the 39th and assigned to the Corps main effort in Fallujah. This left a massive gap in the Brigade's area of operations and a Task Force was created under the 1-206th Field Artillery to fill the void. This infantry platoon was thrown into the mix and drew some difficult missions. I, among others, probably need to do more to make sure their story is told, but Knowledge is probably not the right forum for that story. Thanks.....

3202:, though. I agree that there are certainly quite a few sources that mention him, but I think the thing to consider is would the majority of these mentions be described as "passing mentions" or as "significant coverage". Short answer, IMO, is I actually don't know how this one would fare. I have seen a trend of late within Knowledge which would lead me to believe that it potentially wouldn't survive a deletion debate if it was nominated. The fact that his biography appears to have been written by a family member would probably count against the sources in such a debate, even though it appears to have been published by a reputable publishing house. Additionally, I think there would potentially be an argument that there are too many "intricate details"; I'm not sure I agree, but then I am intimately interested in these details. Would the average person, though? Potentially not... so they would potentially want a much more succinct biographical article, which, when you remove the detail that most of the references include, essentially boils down to a relatively nondescript bio. I think. That said, I certainly don't want to discourage you. I can see that you've clearly put a lot of work into it. Sorry, I'm not sure if any of this was helpful. Regards, 2567:

same management etc. Only the HQ and the club colours were changed. UEFA and BFU clearly explained that CSKA-Sofia and CSKA Sofia are NOT the same club which is obvious from all their official documents, letters and interviews. If what you are saying was true, all indebted teams would just register a new company and "solve" their financial problems. What you are calling "mocking" are indisputable facts and if they somehow offend you it's definitely not my problem. There are many historical facts, represented on Knowledge, which don't make me happy but my personal dissatisfaction doesn't make them untrue and I'm not vandalising the pages. I really wonder how could you call UEFA, BFU and the Bulgarian Commercial Register untrustworthy sources, considering they are actually the most trustworthy. They all unconditionally state/show that CSKA-Sofia is renamed Litex and isn't a successor of CSKA Sofia. A very important detail is the existence of CSKA 1948, a club which is also supported by fans of the origianl CSKA Sofia and they consider the whole CSKA-Sofia thing a great hoax, no? Even many of CSKA Sofia's legends declared that they don't support the project of Grisha Ganchev and CSKA - Sofia is a new club and not the one they played for.--

2584:

leagues. First League is a newly formed league, so this was nesceserry to happen in order the team to participate in in. Yes, Litex and CSKA have the same owners, but are two different teams. The club "CSKA 1948" is actually called "Central Sports Club of the Army 1948"", which is different from "CSKA Sofia"", whose trademark name is not an acronym. They also have different emblem, shirts, stadium, etc. The clubs Litex and CSKA are not the same ones by all means, all that is changed is the legal legal registration in the Bulgarian law system. BFU are writing it like this based on the law registration, they do that with every club - PFC Levski EAD, PFC Neftohimic 1968 EAD, etc, they give the information to UEFA. The lawsystem and the various registrations there are a complicated matter, but the registration itself is also briefly described in the article. The clubs are one and the same in all means, with everything they represent. The fact that you are unhappy about it is not a matter of Knowledge. There are fans that support different opinions, but the facts are like this. Faking the facts and the sources doesn't make your opinion the right one, and the agressive way that you wish to split the articles prove your intentions.--

3583:

you mean by fan projects as I was giving links to the official site of the club. I already explained to you why your interpretations of the information from these institutions and the Commercial Register is not correct and what it really means. The one legal entity went bankrupted, it was relapsed by another using legal shifts. Never a Bulgarian club has been limited it's existanse only to one legal registration, including many others as PFC Septemvri Sofia, PFC Botev Plovdiv, and even PFC Levski Sofia in 1999. You just try your very best to pull stuff to try to "make the club dead" because you are a fan of a rival one. These key members only have stated their personal opinion of the subject, and never the BFU has made an official position about that, it only regulates and registers. I told you that CSKA still exists in First League and Litex still exists in Third League, you keep avoiding that matter. Do not invert the topics please, with both Laveol and Chris I have reached a reasonable consensus, except with you. Rupert already told you where to see the IP addresses, they are dynamic and are many with similar first patterns, i.e. 212... something, but they are all from a Vivacom dynamic IP mobile phone network.--

4267:

with this guy. Actually, many Wikipedians share my opinion." - as a personal offense and you will be reporting you again if you make a comment like this. Your statements that "many people else"share your opinion are shared only by bg:User:GOOR, with whom I had a similar argument because he refused to take in anything I told him about the topic. Yes, you are not indifferent to the topic and a supporter of Levski, which perfectly explanes why you want to declare "the rival club dead" at all costs, and thats why you are attacking me like this. First of all, you understand that hundereds, if not milions of users use this IP's, right? Because they serve the enthier mobile network of Vivacom. This is why I replied to your message there. I already said that you are best at twisting everything to prove yourself right, so maybe you are a lawyer after all. Trying to "investigate" such IP's more that 1 month in the back is irrelevant because they are used by so many people. I am interested in TV articles and I started editing football ones this year because I got more into the topic. Your actions at the moment are exactly like I told you - the theif says "catch the theif!". FYI, I never used Vivacom, ever. I am using

2534:. The previous legal registration went into bankrupsy because it was abandoned and no taxes were paied. The Bulgarian football system alowes that and several other clubs have done it as well. Litex Lovech still plays in the Third level of Bulgarian football, where no registrations are required. However, fans of the rival club were unhappy with that and are trying to "mock" the club that it is "a renamed Litex, having nothing to do with CSKA", and putting the "dash" for "PFC CSKA-Sofia", wanting to futher "mock" the oponents and to "prove" that the clubs are different and that "the original CSKA is dead". In reality, there is no difference between "PFC CSKA Sofia" and "PFC CSKA-Sofia", they are the same club, using the trademark "CSKA", the emblem, the colors, the stadium, and "Sofia" being the home town it plays from. Fans of the rival club are feeling "cheated" by this, thats why BG89 does his best to "seperate" the articles, using "sources" from various untrusty sites in order to prove himself right. Yes, the legal registration have changed, but the clubs are the same - there are no other clubs with the name "CSKA Sofia".-- 11188:

was taken with my iPhone when we attended the Golden Globe awards in 2015. Username Stemoc repeatedly reverted my edits and continued to troll me into the evening. He repeatedly claimed the photos were not mine and requested deletion from wikipedia. I contested the photo deletion and username Guanaco responded to me appeal. Guanaco asked me to verify my identity by tweeting the image on my twitter account @marcuskayne and stating the image was free to use. I did that immediately and had Rebecca also retweet the photos from her account to verify our identity. Guanaco confirmed my identity and also asked Stemoc to stop editing Rebecca's page. But Stemoc continued and was relentless. I appreciate you protecting the page. Can you please update the photo on Rebecca's page to the photo taken on my iPhone at the Golden Globes. As Rebecca is an actress, this is the first photo that pops up when people google her name. Rebecca doesn't feel the photo the fan took is very flattering and would really appreciate it if the photo used was from an industry event that we attended. Thank you.

393:

Hollywood movie with actors John Cusack , Ryan Phillippe , Rachelle Lefevre , Luis Guzman and Jacki Weaver . The movie have a Knowledge page under " Reclaim movie 2014 " . Briana Roy have many good sources / websites that wrote many articles about her and the movie " Reclaim " which she played on . Briana Roy also played a guest star role on a T.V Series " Recovery Road " as the role of Young Trish . Briana Roy also appeared on Tyra Banks daytime talk show " FabLife " as Vip Guest " Kid extravaganza " or you could search on YouTube " Kid Diy Sisters " Briana have done many National & international tv commercials such as Peek-A-Boo , Kmart , Comcast , Tide . Briana Roy also done lots of Print Ads ; such as a global Print Ad For Nike , A National Print Ad for Avis Budget , Etc .Below are some links about Briana Roy that I am hoping you can take time out of your busy schedule and review . I am trying to make a page for her but unfortunately , a user already tried to but now it says that the page is being set up for deletion and I can not make a

835:) even though the edits are valid and sourced; not only they obbey Knowledge's general policies but they also don't infringe the article's specific rules. The strange thing is that he admits he thinks my edit is not wrong, and yet he insistis that I must discuss the change on the article's Talk page. I went to his Talk page and asked why on Earth he was reverting valid edits and asking me to discuss them. As far as I know, valid additions only need to be discussed if they are polemical or controversial, which was not the case (I was only updating a number that was outdated by 19 years). For my surprise, he deleted my comment and wrote "Kindly get lost from my page.", which is not proper behaviour for a Wikipedian in my opinion (apart from the fact that a user's page is not really 2734:. It wasn't actually a very good week for it in the end, and I wasn't able to devote as much time to responses as I would have liked due to a couple of real life emergencies at work. I found the process...interesting, shall we say. I can certainly see why many people don't put themselves through it, and why our admin numbers are declining. Anyway, since then I've done a bit of admin work, but I am just trying to ease myself into things (closing some AfDs, clearing some of the speedy deletion requests, processing some page protections, doing some revdel and histmerges, etc). I have certainly found my own content creation has suffered though. I have made a couple of blues (errors), so if there is anything you feel I should be doing better, please let me know. Regards, 3498:. The thing that you may not have logged in under your phone and edited under these IP's doesn't mean that this wasn't you at 100%. It matches up exactly, so either it is you, or someone is doing you a bad favour. After that I had to report you, because you refused to take in anything I gave you, and continued to revert my edits to your version despite the talk page discussion. Yes, no actions against you were taken because no investigation was taken by third parties to identify what exactly is up with the matter, and unfortunately unlike the Bulgarian Knowledge, there is no Bulgarian administrator here who is up-to-date with the topic and knows what is going on. I once again ask you to stop and reconsider your actions. They do not lead to anything good.-- 10340:

ES. If removing apparently good content w/o an ES is not considered vandalism, there will be a lot of content deleted per "I don't like that" which is not going to be restored. If you have a better idea, I would defiantly like to get it in the system. With my last 500 edits (about 240 reverts and 240 warnings) about 50 were "unexplained deletions". That's 20%. I spend 90%+ of my time on Knowledge on RCP. I am doing it in an attempt to keep Knowledge quality up. I do try to help people and apologize for making errors. However, if people don't communicate, (which is a bit of a problem for me as well) it is rather difficult to assist them. After a long period of RCP, things to start looking all the same. I probably should take more breaks. Cheers

4517:

researchers have put up in the past few years. It has already p*ssed a couple of the researchers off enough into their leaving and I am getting to that level as well. Direct discussion with him has been fruitless as he just quotes chapter and verse of Knowledge regulations, yet his ignorance and lack of reading on the subjects is fairly apparent. However, as his user-page shows him to be an multi-awarded editor by quantity and I have just a simple narrow niche of contribution, I feel powerless to put forward a case. Is there a process within this Group I can use, where senior writers can offline verify or constructively discuss my errors in editing and offer suggestions to move forward. Thanks, in advance, for any help

6280: 372:, which will help you assess whether there is consensus to move the page. If it is unlikely to be controversial, when you become an "auto confirmed" editor (usually after you have performed 10 edits and your account is more than four days old) you can simply move it yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page when it is in read mode. Until then, you will need someone else to move it for you. My suggestion is to post the suggestion on the article's talk page, asking for opinions about whether people agree with your proposal. Wait a week or so to determine if there is support for your proposal and by then your account should be updated to allow you to move the page yourself. Regards, 11809:

Regiment. There were three of these (301, 302, 303) that were essentially Negro (then-correct term) labor units with white officers and NCOs. They do not have Knowledge pages and there isn't very much written about them but I get the sense they were pretty important for moving supplies from ship to shore. Brest was one port. I think there's three options here: a page for each regiment; a page for the regiments as a group; or ignore them; Just to make things interesting, there were also stevedore battalions and I haven't figured out the unit relationships. I'm leaning toward a group page; even that will probably be a stub. Thoughts?--

5300:, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ -- 4356:

another of the same dastardly crimes; both sides appealing to all and sundry for help, but no help being forthcoming; both sides misunderstanding and misinterpreting events and policies; one user claiming the other is using sock puppets, only for the other to come back showing that the accuser was using sock puppets to support their opponent, thus making their opponent appear to be using sock puppets. Brilliant! Now I am waiting for the big twist in the finale; which is surely that this is all the work of one person who has split personalities??? At any rate, the whole twisted saga is a work of genius....

11230:. Secondly, Knowledge operates by consensus and while I have the ability to edit the article as an admin, doing so to re-add the image would be poor form in my opinion as I would be abusing my access. Ultimately, if you wish to resolve the matter the best way to do so is to establish consensus for your change on the talk page of the article. If there is a majority in support of changing the image, and if the image is restored, then it would be a pretty safe thing to do to. If there isn't, then continuing to change the image would not be advisable. Finally, I ask that you read 2500:

concerns, please raise them at the relevant admin board; however, please be aware that vexatious complaints are frowned upon and can result in splash back. (PS, regarding the article in question, my suggestion is that if there truly are two completely different teams with similar names (as opposed to one team with different owners etc), you need to find a proper way to disambig them, rather than a simple hyphen. For instance, it's former name in brackets or a date of establishment in brackets might be better, or something else which clearly distinguishes them). Regards,

2491:(at least on the surface) a valid redirect and then you edit warred to maintain your preferred version. The other editor also engaged in the edit war, but would no doubt, like you, argue that 3RR does/did not apply as they (and you) were reverting vandalism (from your own perspectives). Hence, I chose to protect the article and not block either of you. If you feel the topic should be split, you should try to gain consensus for doing so rather than unilaterally recreating a topic on a redirect page, particularly given that there is clearly opposition to your proposal. A 10290:(My apology for the wall of text) I personally have no interest in the page content. In fact, I have never heard of the guy and have no interest in spectator sports. The anon didn't leave any explanation in an ES other than "correct removal of content"??? and simply blanked his talk page (which for some reason, Huggle is restarting the warning count). If the anon had given any legitimate reason for removal ("wrong categories" would have sufficed), then I would think it would fall under content dispute; which I would have stopped to discuss. You can see such an example 3137:

differences and I guess I am probably using them very inconsistent. I usually use what feels right which is apparently a mix of British and American. Personally I dont care which English style it is (I was not the person who added the template/note) but of course everything should be consistent at the end. Paratroops is imo just a typo and was meant to be paratroopers. Regarding strong-point I dont know how I is correctly spelled actually so I went with that version. :D But all of that seems to have been cleared up by now, so thanks to both of you.

9980: 859:. However, you will need strong evidence and you should not be posting there for the wrong reasons (i.e. just because someone has reverted you). Finally, if someone has asked you not to post on their talk page, I think you should respect that. Their edit summary, while a little uncivil, is probably just based on exasperation. Remember that they, like you, are only human and most likely believe, like you, that they are editing in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Finally, if you are not getting anywhere, you might consider 6447: 1510: 7591:. Gheluvelt is on the Menin Rd just beyound the limit of that map (bottom RH corner). 1.3 km from Hooge, the Menin Rd kicks to the southeast. Gheluvelt is a further 2.9 km along the road. The coodinates for the road junction immediately east of Northampton Farm (south of Blackwatch Corner) are 2.982828°E 50.843167°N. There are buildings marked as a farm but unnamed approximately midway between Inverness Copse and Glencorse Wood (map of Gheluvelt area (25th to 27th August 1917). On the other map 4871:: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the 11302: 10635: 4718: 31: 8321: 11280: 10613: 7829: 989: 932: 8460: 8279: 6757: 8433: 5165: 6140: 2974: 585: 183: 11415: 10718: 6436: 11442: 10785: 8388: 11656: 10869: 10124: 9645: 8589: 7000: 5819: 4387: 2237: 1589: 1203: 236: 1393:

going on here? , , . And what was the need to start an RFC again? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)". Some editors opine that the ARVN units weren't at the battle and thus could not have give support to the US troops at the battle. I would appreciate if you close it with a different and more appropriate reason (i.e: consensus not reach, recommend to go to the next step of dispute resolution). Thank you.

888: 6750: 11337: 10678: 10035:

of the village of Anabta Mosque, named her (the battle of Anabta great) in more than one location in the page r 21 r 40 r 248, described what happened to the detailed accurate. (3) Morning News newspaper issued on June 22, 1936. The text stated that "two british soldiers and at least 10 arabs were known to have been killed at the village of Anabta on the haifa tel Aviv road during heavy fighting this afternoon."

1778: 6366: 3324: 839:, but a public space that follows the same rules as other Wiki pages). All in all, he seems to be acting like the owner of the article. How should I proceed ? Is this enough for a block or is there another way to solve this ? I need some admin to intervene. Also, I suspect that this user has been comitting sock puppetry. Who can investigate it further in order to find evidence for that infringement ? Thank you. 1140:, or are you telling me Australians are so hardcore that getting slapped with a trout is far too weak a punishment? More seriously, the sourcing is so poor that I don't really wish to mislead readers into thinking there was material from any of those sources actually in the article, and it just seems odd to me to have "further reading" but no adequate sources, so I didn't feel it was worth keeping, that's all. 8340: 5451:

go full open & public (as you suggest w. "Linking to your draft on the current article talk page, and requesting opinions" and living in great fear and great dread of t-r-o-l-l-s ( or far worse, well-meaning but POV-saturated POV warriors of eminent POV-ness) (witness my emailing Ian for advice rather than posting on his talk). In short, I don't want trolls to screw up this rewrite, and I don't want

2926:

fully understand it), but that is probably the short version. Re: Maroubra Force, I'm not really sure, to be honest. The last mention I can find in Brune is on p. 243 (around 12 September 1942 when the 25th Brigade began moving up to Ioribaiwa). If we could find a ref that provides a definitive disbandment date, that would be a great addition to the article. Porter's biography isn't clear on this either:

6597: 11112: 5962: 2848: 497: 132: 1440:. In my opinion, at least five editors said they supported the proposal and that is why I closed it. I can accept that we might have a different interpretation of the consensus, but what I can't understand is why you closed the review and then after you had been reverted and I closed it, you reverted my close. Clearly, you thought it should be closed when you closed it. What changed your mind? 4699:. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Knowledge. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this 3450:, and other similar individuals who are veterans or reservists, but notable for work outside of military service. I noticed that the military service of many such individuals was often overlooked on their pages and wished to correct that. So far I have only received the service records of Geoff Ramsey. I am still waiting for that of Eric Garcetti, and I intend to send more requests shortly. 11269: 10602: 11255: 10594: 1959: 8268: 3613:@Rupert I'm sorry for the late reply. We had elections here in Bulgaria and as a member of election section commission I was really busy during the weekend. Also, there was another reason for my delay which you will find out after you read this. My concerns are even bigger than yours because the edits from anonymous IPs don't help me at all. They actually undermine my position and 6441: 11571:

reliable as many other sources), while too many other people benefit from it when they shouldn't or attempt to use it for their own gain (i.e. promotional editing, POV pushing etc). Equally, I am starting to realise that many of our policies are not conducive to supporting serious content creators. Anyway, sorry, I will plug in my enthusiasm again. Have a good one. ;-) Regards,

3618:

puppets, especially after he was asked to. I registered my account in 2008 but had just a few edits until 22 June 2016 when I noticed that there were no pages about the current and the last season of my favourite football club. Shortly after I created them I noticed the discussion about CSKA and CSKA-Sofia which I joined because I'm not indifferent and the dispute affects

426:

now that it has been edited, that has been reset. Secondly, as with any Knowledge article or draft, any editor can edit the page and make improvements, or make suggestions, so long as those contributions fit within policy guidelines. In this regard, there are a number of policy guidelines that I would urge you to review before editing the article. These are specifically:

3183:(in my sandbox). I have been working primarily (at this stage) from his biography but he is refered to in MC Carthy, Fitsimmons, James, Brune, Paull(?) Allan Powell, Third Force (p221 of bio)and apparently a contemporaneos Sydney news paper as "The man who blazed the Kokoda Trail" (bio p210) - so there are certainly multiple reliable sources. Thanks in advance 3527:, explained that CSKA no longer exists and CSKA-Sofia is renamed Litex. Also, it's absolutely not true that Laveol, Chris Calvin or anybody else accepted you position. They just quit the discussion because you left no room for consensus and you want me to do the same. I'm really curious to learn who are my puppets. Would you please let me know their names? -- 9581:. All I can figure is that they are parking this stuff anywhere they can figure out on Knowledge, including my user talk & their own user talkpage (where they have parked similar content in the past). And yeah, this particular editor does have a long history of obsessive edits about Thomas the Tank Engine & VeggieTales associated articles... 4771:, and I wonder whether a baseline on a ship is imaginary (as in Waterline, which appears at the end of the list of terms), or actually painted on the side of the ship. Is the change from "imaginary" to "level" an improvement? Either way, are you happy with the preposition at the end of the phrase? Or would you prefer no preposition at the end: 1340:

Division) could then redirect to the larger article. That would potentially allow you to create a decent B-class article. Another possibility would be to cover them in the article on the division where they would draw their cadre staff from, i.e. 50th Guards Motor Rifle Division in the case of the 76th Tank Division. Thoughts? Regards,

3152:

one, albeit with the involvement of other Allies, of course. Re "paratroops" it is definitely a word: it is the collective noun of paratroopers (according to the Macquarie Dictionary), that said, I wouldn't use it myself. Beyond that, I think Mary has done a fantastic job on the article. Thank you both for your efforts. Regards,

3364:

better illustrate these individuals' military service on their Knowledge pages. The main issue is that I have no idea as to how to cite these records. I asked on the Help Desk, but recieved conflicting answers. As Lead Coordinator for the Military History Wikiproject, I trust you'd be better equipped to answer my question.

2008:

to also (somehow) reinvigorate the ACR process and expand our active pool of editors. Could be tricky, though, as a subaltern my leadership style is to just wear my uniform correctly and well, and walk ahead of the troops so that I get shot first ... actually, do these stars come in a more subdued colour? .... ;-0 Regards,

8144:

Vanlandingham were interviewed and their statements are in the record. These changes defame the character of a recognized combat hero. I would roll back the changes my self but I am afraid this will just initiate a confrontation with the individual behind the IP address, who knows that I created the page in question.

5384:

reasons. For one, I am not an admin. For another, although I can be very helpful and very diplomatic for reasonable periods of time, I do have a well-established history of falling into general "shut the fuck up" behavior (never bad enough to warrant a block in 10 years, but still not particularly constructive either).

3632:

them against me. TV Boy was so desperate to get rid of me because I started calling for a third opinion and his only chance was to get me banned. It was very time-consuming and the post won't be short but it's worth it. Here is the incomplete list of the anonymous Vivacom puppets and how they are related to TV Boy:

11839:

G'day, a regimental-sized formation (when regiment equates to multiple battalions) would normally be notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it really does depend on how much depth there is in the sources. Probably best to be cautious to start off with, so I'd recommend creating a group article

10030:

An error in the title of the article The evidence I've put in the discussion page for Battle of Nur Shams to change the name of the battle to battle of Anabta. it is inappropriate to retain the label wrong Battle of Nur Shams, after the submission of all adequate evidence that this battle called the

8227:

I concur, valid comments all. We are currently in the Brigade's centennial year. It's parent organization, 39th Infantry Division, came into existence in 1917, and I am involved in helping write a series of articles on the Division for the Arkansas Military History Journal at the moment, but when I

6933:

I'm pretty sure it's the date that's the problem. This is the first reassessment with a 2017 date (2017-01-06). I just did a test, and changed "2017" to "2016", and the link to "Codename: Gordon" showed up as you'd expect. I suppose if we need to fake 2016 dates to get the articles to show up, we can

5122:

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent

4355:

This whole thing - both here and on numerous other pages around Knowledge - has to be one of the best, most engaging thrillers I've encountered in years. Have you sold the film rights yet??? The constant twists and turns; both sides being partly in the right and partly in the wrong; both accusing one

4279:

can determine if you ever logged in under a Vivacom IP. Twisting everything the way around and trying to fabricate things to use my accusations against me to prove yourself right and clear won't make you "the winner", in fact this only grows more arugments in my case wich I can use against you if you

4266:

BG89, I am trully amased by your oratorical abilities. Trully no one better can you can take fact A and turne it the other way around in less than a sentence, you trully are suitable for a lawyer. Anyway I am taking this "Since the first time I read a comment by TV Boy I felt there is something wrong

3631:

by TV Boy and ... another anonymous Vivacom IP which was part of the edit wars. I bet you never expected too see what you are about to see. Ironically, the real sockmaster and the person behind all the Vivacom IPs is TV Boy himself. Initially, he used them to edit anonymously and then he tried to use

3622:

or more precisely which is the club Levski played last month. Since the first time I read a comment by TV Boy I felt there is something wrong with this guy. Actually, many Wikipedians share my opinion. Not only users of the English Wiki but of the Bulgarian as well. In order to find out what is going

3493:

BG89, I told you several times on several talk pages why your actions are not correct, why the information you are trying to put on several actions is false, but you just kept on and on refusing to take anything I give you as a confirmation, as a source, as evidence, you just kept twisting everything

3475:

Another user(The TV Boy) has accused me of socking many times and is trying to use his false accusations against me in an ongoing discussion about CSKA and CSKA-Sofia. I'm contacting you because you kind of know about the dispute but don't worry, I'm not asking you to take my side at all. Actually, I

3416:

to help format them. However, you need to be careful in citing such works as they are primary sources. Knowledge prefers secondary sources, although some primary sources are acceptable so long as you do not apply your own analysis or interpretation to their contents. As such, you must simply use them

3086:

wanted the article to be in British English. But since that tag has been there since November 2012, maybe Dead Mary did not see it. It doesn't matter to me which variant of English is used, but don't you think the date format and the spelling variant should match (whichever English variant is decided

2791:

as well as the entries page, regardless if yet approved or not as that's the master list of all articles being done. It's just veyr time consuming for me to be judging the articles, trying to contribute myself and chasing up what people have done and filling it out for people each time. So if you can

2444:

shortly before asking for protection and now the protection of the page in fact protects his vandalism... Despite the almost identical names, those are two separate clubs which have nothing to do with each other. CSKA Sofia was a Bulgarian football club established in 1948 which went bankrupt a month

425:

G'day. Thank you for your query. A couple of points come to mind. Firstly, the draft article appears to have been removed from the deletion queue due to the fact that an editor has made a recent edit to it. As a draft article, it is subject to deletion if it hasn't been edited in six months, however,

399:

Reclaim Film Knowledge . Please I am asking you nicely , take a look at my message and take it into consideration and review this message . Briana Roy really deserves a Knowledge . She have a major fan base and she is notable . I can not write her article due to someone else already wrote it and it's

11187:

Hi AustralianRupert, I wanted to follow up on the content dispute warning you placed on Rebecca Mader's page. My name is Marc Kayne and I'm Rebecca Mader's husband. Yesterday, I tried to update Rebecca's photo on her page from a random photo that fan had taken of her at a comic con to a picture that

10034:

The oldest texts that talked about the battle of Anabta, which took place on June 21, 1936 were: (1) Palestine newspaper in its edition on June 22, 1936 and named for (violent battle In the vicinity of Anabta). (2) the book manuscript: Iliad Palestine war of 1937, authored by Mohammad Hijaz in front

9451:

G'day, yes I think a slow and measured approach would be best to allow people time to try to find references if they exist. Some of the subjects would meet the GNG in my opinion (e.g. Winters, Sink and possibly Malarkey), but many others possibly won't. There are also others that might be better off

8195:

violation IMO and can be removed on those grounds; however, I think what Sturm says also makes sense. Potentially, though, if you would like to keep that level of detail about the formation's involvement in Iraq, it might be possible to create a child article focused specifically on that deployment,

5435:

just yet, although if edit warring persists, some sort of protection might be considered. Posting your concerns on the talk page seems like a good idea in the long term to try to establish consensus on the article. Linking to your draft on the current article talk page, and requesting opinions might

3363:

Good morning, I'm new to editing Knowledge, and am unclear as to how to cite a particular source, or if I can even use it at all. I recently requested veterans' records from the National Personnel Records Center, a part of the US National Archives, and I believe I can use some of this information to

3271:

G'day, nice work, it looks very good to me. Just a couple of minor points: did he have any children and was he survived by his either his wife or any children? Also, finally, when you mention Molongolo, is this the place that is now a suburb of Canberra, or somewhere else? The link is current a dab,

3151:

G'day, regarding dates and spelling, I guess my answer is that it's complicated. The US military uses dmy date format, so a lot of US-centric articles, even though they use US spelling will use the DMY date format. Re this article, I believe that it should use US spelling as the topic is mainly a US

2499:

if the situation becomes entrenched. Continued use of prejorative language will not help the situation either. Regarding talk page access, those are rarely protected and it is not possible (technically) to block a specific user from posting on a specific talk page. If you have valid editor behaviour

2007:

Thanks, gents, I think we have a good team this year, but I also think we have a lot of challenges ahead of us. I would like to try to resolve the KC issue in an amicable manner that helps us retain valuable long term editors, while also keeping us in touch with the wider community, and I would like

1339:

G'day, that's an interesting question, I wonder if it would be better to cover them together in a larger article? For instance, perhaps an article on mobilisation divisions of the Soviet Union, rather than have several short articles on the separate divisions themselves? Those titles (e.g. 76th Tank

1091:

Hmm, not sure I agree. Its pretty standard to include "further reading" sections (especially in undeveloped articles) IOT point readers looking for more information to where they might be able to find it themselves. Indeed I note that another editor has now included this in just such a manner, which

8204:

or something similar. If you choose to go down that path, I would suggest posting the proposal on the parent article's talk page first to allow some consensus to be established. As an aside, there are large parts of the article that remain unreferenced, so I think it would be a good idea to work on

8169:

Given the long history of the brigade, the article is way too focused on Iraq and covers actions that don't belong in a history of the brigade. It should cover its battalion's activities with occasional mention of a notable action by one of its companies if necessary. The only awards that should be

7742:

I have an additional question. I see text like: it assumed the title of the "Kuring-Gai Regiment". But I also see the designation/title on many places elsewhere as 18th Battalion (Kuring-Gai Regiment). On the page of the 51st I see 51st Battalion, Field of Mars Regiment There are many examples of

7178:

G'day, I've done this now. Only one edit couldn't be merged, though, as it overlapped the history of the other article. It might be best for me to delete this edit, so that you can later merge anything that you produce in the sandbox without any dramas. If that is what you want, please let me know.

6025:

G'day, I've added a little bit from a couple of other sources, but that is probably all I can do, I'm afraid. A couple of questions remain: (1) promoted for gallantry, specifically (seems unusual, are we sure it wasn't just for good conduct/normal career progression?) (2) and what year did he go to

5998:

The GA nomination of this article was failed stating due to lack of coverage, but the present content is the maximum that can be presented. There are only 2–3 books on PVC recipients and I have referred all of them for this article. Please have look and see that if it meets the criteria. I feel the

5450:

Thanks for the reply, which is beneficial. The two key points, I think, are 1) I just wanna have someone I can turn to instead of (and as an alternative to) going on one of my patented full-on "by the way, you're a drooling idiot" rants, and 2) I am dangling in genuine indecision between wanting to

5402:). if you include the 200 or so edits I've made to the mainspace version before I decided to go to my sandbox, my edit count on this topic alone certainly exceeds 2,500 and will certainly go considerably higher.. My goal (cross your fingers, knock on wood) is to drag it through FAC in a few months. 5262:

G'day, unfortunately it's not really an area of expertise for me. Generically, though, I'd suggest expanding the lead to at least two paragraphs, and looking to see if you can add some more of a narrative, potentially about casualties and maybe also economics and other aspects of involvement in the

3582:

local cable network) identification, thought I think this one specifically was not you, because IP's with similar ranges have previously harnessed me in bgwiki and I think this is the same vandal as them. For the Vivacom ones however the pattern is extremely similar. I don't think I understand what

3081:

Thank you so much for going over the article and catching some typos and other errors. I changed American spelling in words such as "defense" to British English spelling because I saw a tag at the top of the edit window saying to use day-month-year dates. Since that's British date format, I thought

3046:

Finally, there is one ungrammatical sentence about two-thirds to three-quarters of the way through the article. I didn't fix it because I couldn't figure out what was meant, but now I can't find it. Maybe I'll read through the article once more when my eyes are rested, but right now I've had enough

2925:

G'day, unfortunately "free for non commercial use" isn't compatible with the site's license, which requires items to be free for all use. It is actually a bit more complex than that, as there is also the intersection of Australian and US copyright law to examine (I did a year of law and still can't

2583:

Everyone can be a fan of whatever he wants - that is not a matter of Knowledge importance. Sinse other clubs like Septemvri, Botev, Beroe have done it and no one have said a thing about it, than it can happen. CSKA and Litex are two different things - two different trademarks that play in different

2490:

G'day, I do not pretend to know the rights and wrongs of the relevant content dispute you are engaged in; however, I protected the article because there was an active edit war of which you were clearly a part. From what I could see, you were attempting to create a content fork from what seemed like

1392:

You just closed the RfC at the talk page of Battle of Ia Drang with an inaccurate conclusion that a consensus has been reached. The editors were confused between the two topics as clarified. The were confused as indicated in the last comment:"Weird edits and refactoring? Can someone explain what is

1113:

G'day, you are correct that I haven't read the source, and if it was added it as an in-line citation I would agree with you, but that was not the case. Nevertheless, the edit was clearly sub-optimal in that I should have re-labeled the section as "Further reading" as Anotherclown says. I shall self

854:

Firstly, I caveat my advice on the fact that from the brief diffs you have provided I haven't reached a conclusion about who is "right" and who is "wrong". Regardless, I would first suggest that you assume good faith, and post a comment on the article's talk page discussing the changes that you are

10339:

were removed as given in an edit summary of "wrong categories. not to be used on players". That didn't occur to me and I could not readily fathom the removal. I supposed if I had spent ten or twenty minutes, I might have figured it out. Something that the anon could easily have communicated in the

10038:

This battle was called the Battle of Anabta, according to the newspaper Palestine issued June 22, 1936, as well as newspaper Morning News June 22, 1936, all these sources said that the battle took place inside the village of Anabta, and the battle was starting point 2.4 km west from Anabta Center,

8139:

The changes all have to do with the Silver Star Medal that was issued to CPT John Vanlandingham. None of the changes are supported by references. The changes imply that CPT Vanlandingham was not entitled to the SS, that members of the Infantry Company that he was with were not interviewed for the

7759:

G'day, Henk, I've added some details about the amalgamation to the 18th Battalion page now. Generally, within the Australian Army I believe the designations would have been "Xth Battalion (Y Regiment)" historically, although later it has become more common for "Xth Battalion, Y Regiment". Regards,

6500:

page. I've already removed Shiva, and have recently been removing and adding community reassessments as needed. Ideally, of course, it would be best to have someone new either take over the VeblenBot functionality for GAR or write new code to do likewise, but no one showed any interest in doing so

5771:

My nomination is made with the greatest and most sincere respect and admiration. Good leaders are hard to find - as hard as good Qies. I might easily have despaired with Buna-Gona but for your support and help. While I am proud of my achievement (and nobody knows my name :) ), it is through your

5295:

which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving

3617:

started when TV Boy began doing his utmost to remove me from the discussion and get me blocked. I definitely think this is a very suspicious coincidence and in overall he is the one benefiting from their edits. It's really strange that after so many accusations he is unwilling to report my alleged

2566:

as a member of UEFA and the supreme administrative body of the Bulgarian football follows UEFA's rules and regulations which are fully applied to the domestic championship. Therefore there wasn't a merger or an acquisition but just a name change. CSKA-Sofia is Litex - same tax number, same owners,

2460:

CSKA-Sofia is simply renamed Litex. I can support my statement by numerous sources ranging from the Bulgarian Commercial Register to FIFA, UEFA and BFU. As a matter of fact, there is not a single credible source supporting any link between CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia(former Litex). Also, I'd like to

1937:

G'day, MB, I've had a look at these and while I feel your pain as I know that you have put a lot of work into these articles, ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that there appear to be different interpretations of Knowledge policy with some applying a potentially more stringent view than

10542:

is legitimately within the scope of MILHIST. I don't wanna just remove the MILHIST WP banner from article Talk myself (esp. since I put it there), but if you think it doesn't belong there, then by all means please do remove it. If you think it should stay, then... let it stay. Either way is OK of

6611:

For "... work on the battles of the Kokoda Track campaign and particularly the Battle of Isurava - not to mention your many other contributions, both as an editor and co-ordinator", I have the pleasure of presenting you with this Golden Wiki as a co-winner of the 2016 Military history WikiProject

2470:

Also, he is writing on my page calling me a "troll" and accusing me of things that could possibly compromise my account which of course are pathetic lies. I consider his behaviour absolutely unacceptable and against Wiki's ethical standards. I'd be really grateful if you take actions and restrict

11855:

provides a generic structure of "an aggregate strength of 2,498. It consisted of a regimental headquarters, headquarters and supply company, two battalions, and a medical department. Each battalion consisted of four companies; each companies consisted of 253 soldiers". Anyway, good luck with the

6897:

On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 30 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts in supporting Knowledge's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Cheers,

6230:

Sorry, I forgot about his post. Ah, yes that makes sense now, although reports and returns do not break such things down like this anymore. I'm not sure where it would go, though. To be honest, I'm not a fan of using tables too much in articles and would be a bit concerned that it was giving any

4310:

and I do not pretend to understand the nature of the dispute you are in. My only concern is to prevent ongoing disruption at the articles and promote a consensus building approach. My advice to both of you is to try to resolve your dispute amicably. Part of that may involve both of you taking a

2022:

AustralianRupert, firstly I congratulate you on election as the Project's lead coordinator. I am also happy for that, since you are one of the most friendly and guiding editors to newcomers (as me). I have learnt a great deal from you. I was just passing by your talk page, and caught the line "I

392:

Hi my name is Fernelle and I Am the paid publicist for Sag Actress Briana Roy . I am kindly asking if anyone can review her previous drafted article and reconsider not deleting the article I am in the process of creating for her . Briana Roy is a notable figure . She played the lead of Nina in a

11608:

It is always good to work with you. Many thanks for looking up a few things and making life easier and for looking over my shoulder and picking up my mistakes (and some that are my little notebooks :) ). It is nice to know that I'm not doing this alone and that makes the task just that so much

10359:

it might have been clearer to Jim (and to myself) that it wasn't vandalism. That doesn't negate the fact, though, that the IP was edit warring. I have unblocked the IP as a sign of good faith and asked them to use edit summaries in future and to discuss disputed edits, rather than edit warring.

8502:

Rupert, Not sure what brought this about, but I've always valued your reviews and I want you to know that. I myself needed a break last year from reviewing at FAC and ACR and I can certainly understand that you might need one as well. But I hope that it is just a break and you return after some

5383:

via email for the names of a few admins who are consistently fair but able to make nuanced decisions etc. He gave me your name on a short list. I feel I may be in for some ongoing but hopefully low-grade conflict etc., and I admit I am not always the best person to handle such things, for a few

6686:

Thanks for the kind words. Its disappointing for me at times to see that a lot of what I do seems to fly below the radar, otherwise I think I would end up at least nominated for consideration for Military Historian of the Year (although I'm grateful I still get a spot in the Coordinator's pool

5048:

Hello there, thank you for your message, I just joined Knowledge to correct a little mistake on the Gewehr 98 page. I'm quite new to this, so I'm not entirely sure how this all works. I didn't change the page itself, but added a reply to the Talk page, complete with a reference to a book which

2073:

G'day Krishna, thanks, actually I'd been hoping to play "first follower". ;-) Anyway, regarding the above comment, as Ian notes correctly, "KC" stands for Knight's Cross, and the comment refers to current discussions about notability of recipients of the award, as well as broader issues around

11570:

G'day, thanks for the invitation, but I'm not sure my opinion would truly be welcomed, to be honest. But anyway since you asked... I feel that ultimately the project is doomed. Too many people who could benefit from using it, believe that it is unreliable (when if used correctly it is just as

11808:

page, off and on, for a while. Toy was one of the guys awarded the Medal of Honor for Wounded Knee. He retired in 1910 but was recalled and commissioned in 1917 for World War I and continued to serve in the reserves through 1924 (or later?). During WW I, he was assigned to the 303d Stevedore

6491:

AustralianRupert, I saw your edit summary for your closure of Shiva as a community reassessment, and thought I should let you know that VeblenBot has been deactivated. Neither of the people involved in it are supporting it any more, and it was shut down over a month ago for some reason. Both

5568:

I'd be happy to help out. A brief look at the article indicates it could use a bit of cleanup at the least, so there should be ample opportunity to learn how to use templates, format and other grunt stuff while improving the article. If you have questions particular to the team (or the 98th

5512:

G'day, Alex. Welcome to Knowledge. One of the key tenets of the encyclopedia is "be bold"; however, there are times when it is best to be a bit cautious in proceeding. This is usually if a change to an article might be considered controversial. That said, if you follow some of the site's key

5239:

up to scale. Do you have any suggestions for further expansion? I'm not as familiar with writing non-biographical information. I mainly need help with article structuring and sectioning and pointing out the nonexistent sections or information that I would still need to add about the subject.

4630:

If you have specific concerns, please take them to the article talk page as you have been invited to do, or the relevant admin noticeboard; otherwise, essentially what this boils down to is edit warring. I'm pretty sure that a reasonable argument will get a reasonable response, but continued

4516:

Hi AustralianRupert - as current Lead Coordinator of the WikiProject Military history, are you able to advise who I can discuss an issue I have with one of the group's editors who is systematically going through and deleting whole sections of biography information that myself and a number of

3136:

you will see that it was much worse. There is also a bit material which has been added by other editors between 2012 and 2016, but I rewrote most of that. The different English style is actually one of those things why I asked for a CE. I dont have enough deep theoretical knowledge about the

10477: 5633: 3518:

What you are supposed to say here are the names of my puppets but for some reason I don't see any of them. Everything you wrote is not true and even if it was it's for other talk pages. You are just trying to change the focus of my post. The sources you were offering me were self-citing and

3127:

Hi again and Hi AustralianRupert. I have seen the discussion and just want to add my comments for explanation. I can assure you that I don't close paraphrase or make a copy violations, I use multiple sources and then write my own text. Over the course of the years my English skill increased

3031:

well written, somewhat sophisticated, sentences; perhaps a paraphrase too close to the source?). All things considered, the article was fairly well written. I just made a lot of small edits. However, though I do find military history interesting, it is not a subject I know much about. I was

8143:

I have personally reviewed the Award Recommendation and the 15-6 that was conducted to support the recommendation, and can supply copies if necessary. He did not as is alleged submit himself for the award. An investigation was conducted and members of the Infantry unit that was with CPT

10354:

G'day, Huon and Jim, thank you for time. My thoughts on this are that Jim was making a good faith reversion of what seemed like vandalism. From what I can see now, it wasn't vandalism. However, if the IP had explained their edits, or discussed their changes after the first reversion per

5409:

I... have never been to ANI as far as I can recall (though I may have complained there once or twice; don't recall). I stay away from it as a rule and by design. I don't even know who is or isn't an admin. So if you have any advice or aid or whatever to offer, I would be grateful. Tks.

6612:

Military Historian of the Year award. In addition to your contributions, it was also said that "it is always a pleasure to collaborate with and manner is an example of leadership are such to which all Wikipedians should aspire." Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject,

3039:

2) I saw the word "strongpoint(s)" several times, but I didn't change it. Is that a military term? It shows up in my edit window with a red squiggly line under it, indicating that the computer does not recognize it as a correctly spelled word. Would "strong point(s)" be more accurate?

9921:

and reverts any changes constantly - and continues to push a bit of a biased agenda (basically uses the word 'controversy' every four lines, includes dubious 'alleged' events as well as verifiable ones, and is clearly pushing an anti-US view without considering compensating factors).

1856:

After reading your assessment of the above page (title), I wanted to ask if you had any specific ideas for the improvement of the list and/or page. For my part, the only thing I could think to do I added, save writing a history of castles and such fortifications in Germany as is done

6878: 2374: 631: 8949:

Stating that I have manipulated consensus without having any evidence of this is a personal attack. I have simply protected the article to prevent the edit war continuing. If you wish for people to take your arguments seriously, I suggest that you cease using pejorative language.

5296:

sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like

3062:

G'day, Corrine, thanks for your efforts; sure I will take a look. Reference your first point, paratroops is a collective noun for paratroopers, I believe. Reference your second point, I'd say "strong point", but that could be an English variation issue, I'm not sure. Regards,

6687:

courtesy of the community). All the same, you and your fellow nominees should be proud for having been singled out for recognition by the community. On this day we honor all of you and your achievements over these last 12 months, and wish you all the best in the coming year.

6523:

G'day, thanks for that. I wasn't sure if it was working, but then the GAR page seemed to update so I assumed it was...now I know it was yourself and Anotherclown fixing my mistakes. Sorry. Anyway, I will remember to update the page directly from now. Regarding a bot request,

9234:

Would it be possible to create task force-specific missing topics lists for March Madness, such as a list with only Russian-CIS-Soviet Military History topics? These lists could later be used as an expanded version of the requested articles lists on the task force template.

5119:. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right. 1805:

established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

1466:

and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks.

1069:. If you haven't seen it and can't cite information from it, it's not really fair to assume that it's a valid source for actual article content. That is what causes people to roll through later and go, "hey, that's not what the source says at all!" and have to rewrite it. 7511:

Got LoCicero but the map's no help, it's too far to the east. I called up Gheluvelt and zeroed in on Inverness Copse but couldn't find a way to change the map ref, except by guesswork. Shame really as I was looking forward to taking you to the ball. I'll try the wikimaps

3731:

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 21 August 2016 added info about the "current squad" of CSKA which IMO is the squad of another club. TV Boy has edited the page many times. On 31 October 212.5.158.42 suddenly changed his mind and decided to "support" me.

855:

proposing and attempting to gain consensus, or see if there is some sort of compromise solution. You should also be a little introspective about the matter. Regarding sockpuppetry, if you believe someone to be committing sock puppetry, you can post your concerns here:

7783:

About the titles. I would think that Xth Battlion, Yth Regiment was used to define that X Battalion is one of the battalions of Y Regiment. E.g. Like in post 1960: 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment. Where pre 1960 it is just a Battalion with a secondary title.

2393:

On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 22 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Knowledge's reviewing processes! Cheers,

7559:

If you work west along the Menin road, there is a wood on the north side (Inverness Copse), some open ground and then Glencorse Wood and Nonne Bosschen. Any coordinates in that vicinity are welcome. At the moment I'm using Hooge but it's too far to the west. regards

4706:

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $ 10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

878: 2906:

They say they are free for non commercial on the pdf from the awm so they can't be used? On another note, it is very good to see this work on the campaign. The existing main article seems to gloss over the Australian advance. On a related issue, I noted that the

5485:

by starting a new section on that page? It seems to me that different WikiProjects have different rules of etiquette, and I'm not sure if I should be blasting out my questions on this very specific article to the entire mil his community. I've taken a look at the

7738:

As an addition to our earlier discussion: The page of the 51st says that is was linked to the 18th in 1935. Then in 1936 a new 51st is created (I assume that that implies unlinking from the 18th). On the page of the 18th the linking to the 51st is not mentioned.

9539:, I added a citation to its table. I also removed the claim that the Black Hawk was named for the animal, because despite that obviously being true, there is no citation to prove it. Do you know of any more official sites I should look for a citation for it? -- 6463:! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, 11840:

first, and if more in depth coverage can be found later it could be split out into further articles on the individual regiments. From what I can tell, similar units have existed in other armies also, with the British Army currently having a couple of units:

8821: 4280:

continue with this behaviour. My accusations of you being the one behind the Vivacom IP's is that simply they follow you everyware where you edit-war in me, pop in exactly at the same time as you on that topic, and respond just like you, this is enoght for

9950:

G'day, Buckshot, I think it might be best for a non-Milhist admin to take action, if it is deemed necessary, to avoid concerns of a "closed shop". From what I can tell it seems a pretty complex and long running situation, so I'd suggest probably filing an

9610:

That IP has a somewhat-strange editing history, I'm almost thinking they are parking this content on Knowledge and then accessing it to place it on some other subject-wiki elsewhere.... but oh, who knows. Thanks for removing talkpage access in any case.

1167:

AustralianRupert, we have a truce in the debate and since only the disputed last sentence requires consensus now, the draft may not be needed. I will be reposting my other edits, but still seek third party comments on the last sentence as I disagree with

11586:

Please understand that is a valid and quite informed response - it actually ticks many boxes of what I have been trying ascertain in my overall survey - and please do not apologise - as to whether the response is welcome or not, hey, this is wikipedia.

5405:

As I said, it's contentious. I may have problems through time. In fact, in just the past 2 weeks or so I have reverted one established editor and one IP. The latter just reverted me back, so I went to the article's talk page and added a TL;DR response.

1411:

the complete lack of any ARVN combat forces in the actual battle itself, other than in a marginally relevant aftermath action, means that, in my opinion, even a mention in the Belligerents section is not justified. FactotEm (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016

11590:

I am quite annoyed I was so late in letting you know my whereabouts last weekend - it would have been good to have able to catch up - however my ghosts of darwin have been consigned to a flat field (former Myilly Point campus) and vacant parking lots.

8788:. I wasn't trying to 'fake' a status the article didn't have; but I was trying to do exactly what you suggest, funnily enough- That was me trying to follow the rules on how to enter it for an A-class review. And failing miserably. I couldn't find that 5700:

which has been moved to the present title recently, and has been assessed as list. I want to look over the article and suggest the apt assessment for the article. Even though it is a bit of list, it has been written in prose style, so what should the

5177:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

6246: 11362: 1795: 8853:

G'day, there can be, but it's not a major thing. I'd certainty avoid concurrent GA and ACR noms. Given that there aren't any comments on the peer review, you could just close it yourself if you want to just focus on the A-class review. Regards,

5476:

Hi AustralianRupert, I'm a recent veteran of the U.S. Air Force, and I have taken an interest in becoming a regular contributor to the Military History WikiProject. In particular, I'd like to start by editing/updating the Knowledge page for the

4659:

If you wish to change the consensus that has been established at the article, there is a constructive way to do that, which is to discuss it in a calm and rational way on the article's talk page. Edit warring is not the way to do it. Regards,

4615:

Whatever consensus you think you are part of, it cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. NPOV is not negotiable. Your efforts to violate it, which extend to lying and filing spurious reports, are vandalism and highly disruptive.

7627:

to convert from decimal to minutes and degrees {{coord|50|50|37|N|02|58|18.6|E|type:landmark_scale:1000_region:BE|display=title}} thanks muchly; I had no idea of the rigmarole I was starting; if I can help with anything, please ask. Regards

6967:

and Codename: Gordon seems to be showing up there now, even though it doesn't appear on the VeblenBot page. Very strange. Sorry, I don't think I can help here. My coding skills and ability to troubleshoot in this realm aren't good. Regards,

6426: 3315: 3128:

considerably I guess. I have read many article and books about milhist and I guess thats why I can use standard phrases describing military actions quite okayish. If you look at the 2011 version when I wrote the first version of the article

4828:

Sorry, that's a bit more technical than I'm used to dealing with, but it seems plausible. I know that a baseline isn't painted on a ship's hull, but it does appear to be used to base other measurements off of, judging by the diagram in the

2792:

take care of that this would be a great help, there's some part filled out ones underneath so you just need to add country, article name and then you username. I added the ones you did earlier but if you could do it from now on.. Thanks.♦

2891:

G'day, I'm not actually certain that they would be out of copyright. If they were published in 1959, they wouldn't be PD in the US. Anotherclown is working on a map now, so I would like to leave some room in the article for that. Regards,

4582:

is a core and non-negotiable policy of the encyclopaedia, of which describing an author as a "master prose stylist" is an obvious violation. Should they insist on repeatedly violating core policies, it would be appropriate to block them.

6701:

Congratulations AR, and happy new year b.t.w! I always find your work enjoyable to read, which is a great knack, which our best contributors share. Also good to see some new names in the mix this year, with great potential. Cheers mate!

10543:

course....oh wait, no. After I posted this and went downstairs, it occurred to me that removing it could be construed as an act of POV. And adding it could too. The most hardcore of British apologists would be adamant that it was not

8837:

OK, AustrailianRupert, I've done that- thanks for making it easier1 But tell me- is there a conflict in any way between an A-class review and a peer review being submitted at the same time, and so potentially occurring simultaneously?

3417:

to provide bare facts such as dates of promotion, places of enlistment etc. If you wish to analyse the contents, the analysis must be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Additionally, primary sources shouldn't be used to establish

5533:). I will watchlist the article and try to help guide you as best I can. The topic isn't something I know anything about (I'm a serving soldier, but strictly ground based). I believe that this sort of topic, though, is something that 1455: 8999:

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found

7327:

has gone through the wringer now and should be ready for GA review. It's not too far from the top of the list on the MilHist discussion page but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless since that queue moves at a glacial pace. Cheers,

7743:

all of the above throughout the Knowledge pages of the Battalions. My question, what was the official designation of those Battalions and do I have to read the other ways of expressing this as just a loose way of telling a story.

4975:

breaks the wikilinks. While I understand it was done as per MOS, but don't you think it's sort of counterproductive when it makes functional wikilinks to existing articles turn red. Do you have a suggestion for a way around this?

11070:

It appears that Attilios has not only "sloppy language" but also sloppy understanding of article histories. And buddy shopping is childish. Article contents is to be discussed in article talk pages not by recruiting meatpuppets.

4562:

Hi there, AustralianRupert. It seems our IP-hopping friend, from Telefonica O2 UK in London, with a bee in their bonnet over JC, is back again. I wonder could you consider some kind of warning/ action/ remedy here? Many thanks.

400:

up for deletion and as Briana Publicist , it's my duty to help her grow and build a Knowledge page for her . I noticed it says her page is up for deletion due to abandonment , how can I prevent the article from being deleted ?

10267:

were edit-warring, both in breach of 3RR. You blocked the IP for 24 hours and didn't even leave Jim1138 a warning message. Was that one-sidedness deliberate? If so, why? If not, you may want to consider overturning your block.

9096:

G'day, at this stage it won't be protected as that would not be in accordance with protection policy (usually pages are only protected if there has been persistent disruption or vandalism etc). I've archived them now. Regards,

10564:

G'day, I'd have said it sits on the periphery, but isn't primarily a Milhist topic. As such, I'd argue the tag is appropriate, but I can see arguments either way and wouldn't object if the Milhist tag were removed. Regards,

8201: 11118:

Thanks for taking care of deleting old draft pages from my User space. I appreciate it. Knowledge runs, I guess, on people like you doing "thankless" tasks. So, here is me hopefully making things a little less thankless.

6396:(as I am not)? The tag has been there for over the week required and nothing productive has happened apart from the user (who is the person the article is about) trying to constantly remove the template. Thanks in advance. 3519:

unofficial fan projects. My sources are UEFA, BFU, Bulgarian Commercial Register and so on. According to all of them, CSKA went bankrupt and 2 new clubs with similar names were established. All key members of BFU including

1456: 11356:

database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the

4858:

based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your

1378:. This is an RfC on an article which has had a lot of content dispute in the past. I am not involved in the dispute but noticed it when I checked out the RfC. A close with a clear decision would help here. Thank you. -- 3035:

1) Twice, I changed "paratroops" to "paratroopers". I did not recall ever hearing the word "paratroops". Is that a word? If it is, perhaps you could determine in each instance which is the better word for the context.

11487: 5471: 4683: 9355:

When someone requests an article that should be a redirect to another (like the Sky Kitten or Junkers J6), and an MM'17 contestant requests that it on AFC/Redirects and its created, does the contestant get credit? -

8050:, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the 7538: 9274:

The issue with the requested articles template is that it can only be expanded so much without becoming unwieldy. Should I create a list for Russian task force topics based on the redlinks in task force articles?

6472: 3342: 1966:

In recognition of your election to the position of Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project, I have the great honor of presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars. I wish you luck in the coming year.

6460: 2635: 11218:, then the image has been deleted and would need to be restored before it could be added to the article. If you feel it was deleted incorrectly, the first thing to do is to contact the deleting admin, which was 8819:

Ok, no worries. There seem to have been similar issues with the template recently... If you wish to start an A-class review for this article, this link should take you to the pre-loaded A-class nomination page:

5123:

when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

2465:

is trying to delete, another example of his vandalism. This person is systematically spoiling pages related to Bulgarian football and he keeps ignoring calls by other users for discussions and their arguments.

1750:! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the 7793: 7748: 1636: 1706:

is currently only lacking in references (according to review) to be moved up to B-Class. I think it's already got strong referencing but if you can think of ways to improve I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers,

8636: 7787:

But I do not know much about the official nor the day-to-day designations of Australian units. I am at the other side of the globe (Netherlands) and just trying to understand the intricate lineages of those

5874: 4450: 7942:, even though they're on the page and displaying properly on the main GAR page. So the first of the 2017 ones, from January 6, will show up in the next day. Everything would seem to be working as it ought. 4311:

short break from the current articles in dispute and trying to focus on something else. Editing Knowledge is supposed to be a hobby, not stressful. Mediated discussion is probably also available to you, or

7540:

google gives Geluveld at the intersection of Mennenstratt and Zandvoordestraat/Kasteelstraat (lat 50.833848°N Long 2.993912° E). If you can give me another location relative to this, I could find it.

7047: 6456: 2284: 11853: 9416:

comes to mind). I'll probably slow down and avoid having more than one current AfD at a time because I don't want to be branded as the guy who's trying to destroy BoB. Along the way, I've come to respect

2748:

Sorry, my bad. I should have realised that you are an admin already - I even voted on your RfA! No reflections on your current work at all - it was just part of my campaign to find new admin candidates.

1250: 8542:, I am working on currently, count as a Military History article? He held the rank of colonel but never fought in any war or conflict. There is more avalaible source on him than Edward William Purvis.-- 4333:

P.S. this is my annonymous moble phone IP right there. You can check it in who.is if you want. I will appresiate if you show yours and not just try to type nonsense to prove yourself right. The TV Boy.

10986:, when an article reached A-Class and FA the same month, we've always tended to just put a blurb for it in the FA section and only use title and nominator for its entry in the A-Class list... Cheers, 10171: 9692: 9480:

was the commander of both units and there is no reference to Mounted Rifles in 1888-1889, however the NSW Mounted Rifles seems to be used in 1890's as well as NSW Mounted Infantry. All very confusing.

6934:

easily do this, but in case you know something else that can be changed I thought I should ask here. I don't see that the dates actually matter a whole lot if a bot isn't actually making use of them.

5263:

war. Also, it seems that all of the examples of combatants are Union servicemen currently; if possible, I'd suggest weaving in some of the details about those who served the Confederacy also. Regards,

2911:

article suggests it existed through to Gona-Buna. My reading of Brune (a bastard of a Place) suggests this ceased to exist when the 39th an 53rd were withdrawn, leaving the 21st bde as the formation?

1882:

G'day, my suggestion would be to take a look at a few featured lists as they will hopefully give you some ideas about expansion. For example, here are a couple of links to feature lists about castles:

7225:

No worries, happy to help where I can. I am still off work until next week, so have a bit of time. After that, my editing will have to drop significantly. I have been recently trying to re-envigorate

2876:

I have snipped 2 sketch maps from McCarthy (CH 6) that I would like to add to improve clarity but I am not certain about the creative commons copyright code to use out of the seven options? Help pls.

11703: 8399:

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (

5189:. 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 892: 880: 283: 10689: 6266: 4748: 2169:

Congratulations on being elected Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject! I know you have the ability and skill to hold this title and serve it well. Good luck, and happy Halloween! :)

10916: 9254: 9195:

G'day, not as a matter of course, no. I will try to remember your request, though, when we come to make the awards at the end of the drive, and will post them there if you send me a link. Regards,

9054:

G'day, the drive period is over. I am waiting until tomorrow for editors to finalise their worklists and then archive it. Points should only be claimed for work done in the drive period. Regards,

1922:. The removal is being justified with comments like "intricate detail", "overcite", "unneeded quote box". It is behavior like this that drives content creating editors away from Knowledge. Cheers 3353: 3331: 3317: 2023:

would like to try to resolve the KC issue in an amicable manner...", is this "KC" something related to me. Just wondering, if there is something regarding my editing please let me know. Regards,

1722:

G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I'm sorry, but I don't really have anything that can help with the referencing for this article. Potentially, you might consider putting it up for

7651:

Wacked them back into google earth and changed options from decimal to DMS as a cross check: 2°58'18.51"E 50°50'37.01"N. Could have done it first up if I had realised :) Glad to be of help.

7135:

G'day, Kerry, I added what I could glean from his online service record. Because they are hand written in many cases, and not complete, the records aren't that easy to decipher, sorry. Regards,

1476: 9909:

draft but continued to want his interpretation, wordings, and text to remain completely unchanged after it's been moved into the mainspace. I approached Nick-D to review my conduct, looking at

7108: 1620: 1604: 8620: 8604: 5858: 5850: 5834: 5499: 4434: 4418: 4402: 917: 8744: 11215: 7031: 7015: 5521:, your edits are most likely going to be acceptable. If you wish to work on the 98th FTS, I would encourage you to do so after you have read a couple of key policies (specifically those on 2268: 2252: 10532: 8445: 8001: 5087:, and then have a go. If you make an error, someone will no doubt correct it, and you can see where you went wrong. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. Regards, 2659: 1234: 1218: 10155: 10139: 9676: 9660: 8449: 4426: 1612: 1526: 11687: 11671: 8612: 7916:

AnomieBOT runs hourly, so the pages will update automatically; we won't need to update the pages manually any more. We still haven't figured out why the 2017 entries don't show up on

7813: 7769: 7129: 5842: 5205: 5079:

G'day, so long as you have a reliable source for your reference, there shouldn't be any major concerns with making your change. My advice is to read a couple of advice pages, such as

4944: 4884: 4410: 1751: 267: 251: 1765: 10900: 10884: 7023: 2260: 160: 11214:

G'day, to respond to your query I have posted a comment on the talk page. Regarding updating the photo, I cannot do this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if you are talking about

8996:

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

1628: 1226: 6200:

G'day, thanks for the link. Just to clarify, what does "3–28", "2–2" and "–7" etc signify? I found the figures a little unclear (but it might be my flu addled brain)... Regards,

4872: 688:

Hi, Would you like to launch a co-nomination of this article for GA status? I think that it should have legs for at least A-class in its current form, and FA is doable. Regards,

11594:

Please feel free to vent further any time on or off wiki - your feedback is more important and relevant than you realise. I appreciate you taking the time to honestly respond!

10147: 9668: 8806: 8628: 6215:

Officers - other ranks. The flu must be addling you unless the services have changed so much - though I acknowledge that they might need to be clarified for the uninitiated :)

5866: 4442: 105: 9318: 214: 11679: 7039: 5718: 5487: 2276: 1790:(also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned 259: 10559: 155: 10892: 9762:

of the open access British Journal for Military History includes an article on the Australian pioneer battalions of the First World War which might be of interest. Regards,

7797: 7752: 5149: 3032:

wondering, if you had time, if you would mind reading through the article and checking my edits and making sure I did not introduce any errors. I was puzzled by two words:

1242: 11001:

Sorry, yes, I see that now. Apologies for this, didn't even notice it up top, just looked like an omission. Happy to remove my addition if you think that is best. Regards,

10526: 10042:

As for Nur Shams 5.5 km west from Anabta and this occurred clashes by 23 May 1936. please an amendment would be called the Battle of Anabta and not a battle of Nour Shams.

8863: 8848: 8832: 6103: 6085: 6067: 6053: 6035: 5309: 5223: 2112: 2036: 11515: 10163: 9753: 9684: 9033:

G'day, though the drive is technically finished the worklist page is still unprotected and can be edited. Should we still keep working and adding to the worklist? Thanks,

7347:

My request for help to find a grid reference for the Gheluvelt Plateau had fallen on deaf ears. Could you suggest other Wikivenues where I might have better luck? Regards

6915: 3442:

Thank you, I am aware of Knowledge's policy on primary sources, and do not intend to interpret the information. I primarily intended to work on the Knowledge articles for

3235:. Sure it needs a second good set of eyes. Would appreciate it. Waiting on a couple of old references to come on loan (Paull & Third Force and will add what I find). 616: 562: 10846: 9421:

a whole lot less than I used to. If you know of anyone else who's interested in helping, I'd be glad to coordinate my efforts. I am mindful of the concern about cabals.--

9181:

I read that the awards for MM '17 will be posted on talk pages. But, some Wikipedians (like me) have a subpage for awards, do you check for those and post them there? -

6946: 6171: 6026:

the Andamans? (3) I believe that the Andamans were captured by the Japanese, so the question is, what was Singh's role here, was he captured, or what happened? Regards,

5343:

G'day, sorry, I forgot about this query. The only real suggestion I have would be potentially to try to add some images of the authors themselves, if available. Regards,

11695: 11045:(notice his name...). If you see history, he deleted a lot of my edits which concerned mostly with format issues, i.e. novel titles were mostly "novel_title" instead of 6117: 520: 275: 11369: 5985: 4896:

Hey, thanks for reviewing the article, I filled in the last citation needed and bumped it up per your comment, do you think it's ready for either GA or A class review?

10908: 4846: 1858: 1531: 817: 470: 11560:

You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks

7965:

so that I can let viewer see my userpage written in Wikimeta directly. But as far as I know, only admin can do that. I would appreciate it if you can help me do that.

7116:

I am just trying to flesh out this article on Alexander Mayes and he served in 2nd/25th Infantry Battalion. I am not a milhistory expert. Should I be linking this to

5999:

all the major aspects are covered, and MILHIS academy's GA review page suggests not to fail an article cause it lacks information from non-reliable sources. Regards,

10769: 9771: 9333: 9001: 8979: 8709: 8116: 7789: 7744: 7238: 6262: 5935: 4339: 1741: 7294: 2061: 2049: 793: 11431: 9244: 9229: 6868: 5604:) and Lineagegeek. I will review your recommended resources and then post my thoughts on improvements on the article's talk page. Appreciate the guidance! Cheers, 3232: 2403: 2364: 1463: 10797: 9068:

So any assessments completed today should not be added to the worklist? I spent time during drive period keeping it updated, could have done more work... Thanks!

9042: 8959: 8944: 8930: 8916: 8902: 4669: 4654: 4640: 1798:

with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

802: 755: 650:

On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 28 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016.

11633: 10437: 10047: 8728: 8527: 8214: 7308: 7144: 6240: 6209: 5796: 4838: 4343: 3281: 3211: 2941: 2920: 2901: 1947: 556: 381: 7886: 7273: 6907: 4625: 4610: 4592: 3005: 1931: 1566: 1324:, based on what the available information is on each division. Can these articles ever be B-class given the available information or are they permanent starts? 1123: 1046: 677: 11098: 10066: 8777: 8237: 8086: 6977: 6923: 6545: 6420: 5578: 2885: 2815: 1449: 420: 403: 11580: 11474: 11049:, decades written as "'40s" instead of "1940s" etc. He also accused me of "sloppy language" which I don't even know what does it mean... Thanks in advance. -- 10983: 9964: 9620: 9605: 8407: 6847: 3598: 2871: 2690: 2549: 781: 668:

G'day, PM. Interestingly, I'd just gotten back online with the intention of handing out these awards, and found you'd already done it. Thanks, mate. Regards,

11902: 11865: 11793: 9561: 9461: 7436: 7420: 7399: 7385: 7220: 6696: 6479: 5556: 5366: 5352: 4731: 4549: 3816:

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: TV Boy used to edit the articles about TV channels both from his account and anonymously from the Vivacom IPs.

3161: 872: 772:

and you can work on it there in your leisure. When you have found suitable references that prove notability etc. you can then recreate the article. Regards,

741: 11176: 11024: 11010: 10453: 10101: 9804:. This is a featured article and I wanted to ping you directly with a notification for your input or opinion in case I did not do it correctly. Thank you, 9298: 9284: 9269: 8893:

As I said, edit warring is not acceptable. Establish consensus for your edit on the talk page. If there is no consensus for it, you are required to desist.

8771: 8566: 8179: 8036: 7989: 7951: 7933: 7897:

AustralianRupert, I thought you should know that VeblenBot's functionality in the GAR and PR spaces has been taken over by AnomieBOT as of 03:30 today. The

7839: 7337: 7251:

Rupert, we need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level. will you email me please?

7202: 7188: 6862: 6823: 6725: 6577: 6563: 5760: 5682: 5272: 5037: 3459: 3430: 2083: 2017: 1735: 1349: 999: 942: 11849: 11243: 10574: 10369: 9832: 9168: 9155: 7939: 7917: 7906: 6960: 6916: 6493: 6339: 5688: 5463: 5445: 5116: 4823: 4357: 3096: 3072: 3020: 2772: 2758: 2743: 2143: 2129: 1491: 1149: 10051: 9786: 9520: 8352: 7722: 7699: 7674: 7660: 7617: 7603: 7569: 7550: 7521: 7506: 7475: 7461: 6888: 4284:. The other edits you are accusing me of, older than 1 month are simply another person's edits, simply because this range is used by thousands of users.-- 2384: 733: 719: 641: 10412: 10039:

Journal of Scottish soldiers have indicated that the clash was a point in the defile "Windy Corner" which is the same distance of 2.4 km west of Anabta.

6829: 6681: 6639: 6012: 5297: 10508: 10019: 9871: 9596:

G'day, really not sure what they are playing at... anyway, I have just re-blocked to remove talk page access for the previously stated period. Regards,

9489: 9379: 9221: 9204: 9106: 9077: 9063: 6653: 6381: 5929: 5613: 4328: 3562: 2623: 2509: 1903: 1407:

A consensus is not reached yet. Three out of five editors said there were no ARVN units at the battle. How could they possibly supported the US troops?

659: 11080: 11072: 11042: 9887: 9883: 9027: 8418: 8366: 5288: 5284: 4505: 1101: 453: 8170:

mentioned are the Medal of Honor and maybe the DSC if well-covered. So I'd solve the issue by deleting all mention of that action (and many others).--

7637: 1691: 10818: 10773: 9926: 9906: 9859: 8691: 8474:(John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Knowledge seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009. 8282: 8133: 7594:, it appears to be Fitzclarence farm. The coordinates for it are 2.971809°E 50.843615°N. I can find others by reference to the contemporary maps. 7318: 7163:? I am going to maintain the user space as a separate sandbox but want the history of the older draft merged to the current active article. Thanks!-- 7102: 6930:

page itself. I thought all I needed to do was replace the last two fields in the name (article and page), and update the date and time, which I did.

6711: 5436:

also be a good way to establish consensus about your approach moving forward. I will watchlist the article for a bit to see how you get on. Regards,

5096: 2951: 2731: 2339: 1991: 1462:

As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of

763: 747: 11249: 10226: 8907:

Inserting forgery in a quoted text is a blatant violation of the Knowledge policy. You are manipulating and misinterpreting the idea of consensus.--

6794: 6147:

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

5418: 5249: 5000: 4956: 3146: 2981:

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

1363: 1305: 592:

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

190:

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

11758: 11454: 10971: 9747: 8302: 7910: 7264:

G'day Ruth, I am going to have to get my head down for some sleep for awhile as it is 2am here. But I will come back to this later today. Regards,

5101: 4863:

in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the

4365: 1909: 909: 338: 10699: 10582: 8102: 6621: 4937: 4299: 3536: 3513: 3122: 2599: 2576: 2484: 1716: 11492: 11283: 10823: 10620: 9467: 8485: 8481: 8256: 7848:

On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves for your excellent work on

6667: 5802: 5278: 5154: 3346: 2821: 1008:

On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves for your excellent work on

951:

On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Oakleaves for your excellent work on

10616: 9506: 5390:

Alas, I am working on a contentious topic. Since February, with periods of relatively more or relatively less activity, I've been working on a

787: 11728: 11195: 10941: 10349: 10196: 9944: 9895: 9717: 8793: 8785: 8778: 8661: 7892: 7072: 5899: 4475: 4370: 4235: 4215: 2309: 1661: 1275: 308: 10395: 5705:

be? It is currently a GAN, if it is to be list, I'll remove the nomination and take to the assessment of lists, perhaps ACR and FAC. Regards,

11497: 11325: 10828: 9925:

But Nick considered himself an involved admin, and suggested I approach one of the Milhist coordinators. Would you kindly review the article

8489: 8156: 2527: 2214: 1887: 1572: 11389: 11380:

policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at

9843:

Just noticed a recent change to the open tasks tab broke the formatting of it, but can't find how to fix it. Could you please help? Thanks,

9091: 8789: 8328: 8324: 7974: 7452:

Without looking at it, if you can position it on modern Google earth, then it will give you the lat/long and that can be converted to a GR?

6224: 6194: 5330: 5067: 4526: 10025: 8572: 7258: 6983: 2475:'s access to my talk page and other pages he's been vandalising. I'm ready to answer all your questions and provide all type of sources. -- 2220: 1551: 697: 10658: 10654: 10650: 10646: 10642: 10638: 9813: 9472:

Hi AustralianRupert. I was wondering whether you could shed any light on whether the NSW Mounted Infantry formed in 1888, was renamed the

9250:

G'day, not sure to be honest. User:Skysmith might know. Beyond that, each task force page has its own "requested" articles template, e.g.

6405: 4258: 3485: 2717: 828:

Hello. I need advice from an experienced user regarding a problem that I'm having with another user. He keeps me from editing an article (

11655: 11458: 10868: 10624: 10123: 10107: 9644: 9590: 9555: 9343:. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to 8588: 8370: 8314: 8310: 7868: 6999: 5818: 5482: 4386: 2411: 2236: 1588: 1202: 1186: 1028: 235: 11349: 11321: 11317: 11313: 11309: 11305: 10086: 9189: 5022: 4968: 3549:. That said, I really believe that the only way to resolve the issue is for a formal request of mediation, which can be requested here: 2800: 2159: 541: 11833: 11639: 11396: 11295: 10852: 10662: 10504: 9628: 8756: 8286: 8260: 8021: 7592: 7589: 6510: 6081: 6049: 6008: 5714: 5374: 2461:

ask you to protect File:Cska-sofia logo.png and File:Litex renamed to CSKA - Sofia.jpg which are part of CSKA - Sofia's page and which

2108: 2032: 1832: 971: 848: 219: 11598: 11564: 11545: 9852: 8713: 8255:

from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please

5321:

Thanks for assessing, I have more to add and wonder if you have any suggestions as I've not done an article like this before. Regards

4572: 2359: 1976: 1333: 11291: 11207: 11068: 11065: 8887: 8294: 6743: 5652: 5481:. I would love the input of the Mil His WikiProject community before I dive in. Should I start the conversation on the WikiProject's 5230: 621: 465: 11130: 9445: 3310: 3296: 3258: 3244: 3226: 3192: 1181: 411: 11618: 10317: 9308: 8551: 8247: 5115:, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at 4796: 3056: 832: 829: 11154: 10001: 8823:. You just need to add a nomination statement and hit save, I will then fix the coding on the article talk page for you. Regards, 7172: 6324: 6231:

article too much detail (good for a book, though, but not an encyclopedia article IMO). Anyway, belated Merry Christmas! Regards,

5787:

Thank you very much, I've certainly enjoyed working with you and I hope that you will continue your work in other areas. Regards,

5781: 4601:, the apporpriate acton for the editor reverting against consensus would be to open a discussion thread at the article Talk Page. 3373: 1387: 1078: 11015:

Heh, I don't feel the need to remove now you've taken the time to do it, it's more something for future reference... :-) Cheers,

10995: 10666: 9146:

Sorry, I didn't notice you were working on it. I will leave it alone while you make your changes as I was just gnoming. Regards,

8332: 8298: 8090: 7730: 7495: 7356: 6304:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! 4917: 2197: 1697: 1430: 1402: 1375: 1013: 952: 441: 362: 11058: 10294:. I am beginning to think the IP was trying to make a point by not leaving any ES. Otherwise, I would think that it falls under 8410:

closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (

5965:

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

5745: 4985: 2851:

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

500:

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

135:

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

11724: 10937: 10805: 10628: 10313: 10277: 10192: 9713: 9394: 9344: 8657: 7370: 7068: 6587: 5895: 5601: 4855: 4471: 2305: 1818: 1747: 1657: 1271: 304: 187: 10670: 10245: 8992:

creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

6148: 5013:

Hello, long time no talk. I was wondering would this article I am working on currently count as a Military History article? --

2982: 2554:

There is no such thing as changing a club's legal registration, so it can participate in a certain league. Such practices are

593: 532:

Have made a little tweak towards finishing if you have 2min to have a quick look. Any further suggestions always appreciated.

191: 11732: 11329: 11261: 10945: 10587: 10237:

Thanks for the protection - I was going to see what happened in the next 12/24hrs before requesting it myself. Thanks again.

10200: 9721: 8665: 8290: 8252: 7076: 5903: 4479: 2313: 1891: 1883: 1848: 1839: 1665: 1279: 353:

to Association of Islamic Chartiable Projects because it is the name of the group and Ahbash is a nick name. How do I do it?

312: 97: 89: 84: 11287: 9133: 8512: 6361: 5664: 11511: 11388:, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully 10842: 10424:

G'day, Hawkeye, yes I'd be happy to work on that with you. I will see if I can order some books from the library tomorrow (

9329: 9023: 8936: 8908: 8879: 8377: 8306: 6468: 5305: 5219: 5145: 5124: 5110: 4880: 4646: 4617: 4584: 1761: 72: 67: 59: 11778: 11222:. If that doesn't resolve the situation and you still believe the decision was incorrect (please note, I am not saying it 6834:

Hey Rupert, just giving you a heads up that I read the FAQ and followed the instructions to close out the peer review for

3786:

This IP was added to the list only because it's another anonymous Vivacom IP and supports my position but it's located in

1784:

Hello, AustralianRupert. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

10377: 10305: 10264: 8705: 8066: 7285:

G'day, Ruth, sorry for the delay...was playing some backyard cricket with the kids. I've sent you an email now. Regards,

6258: 5729: 4918: 4912: 4739:

G'day Bowen, thank you for the offer but I will decline at this stage. Best of luck with your research, though. Regards,

4335: 4316: 3689: 3467: 2519: 856: 710:

G'day, Nick, been thinking about this myself recently, too. Yes, I'd be happy to go halves with you on this one. Cheers,

11852:

might be viable, although potentially there is another term that could encompass all iterations? Anyway, p. 47 of this:

8205:

fixing these issues also, if you have the time. All the best and once again, thank you for your contributions. Regards,

6411:

G'day, sorry, I've been away for a little while on holidays. It appears that this has been dealt with, though. Regards,

11845: 10500: 10332: 9900: 9390:

You may have noticed -- like you have nothing else to do -- that I've been submitting AfDs on characters listed in the

8846: 8804: 8082: 6134: 6077: 6045: 6004: 5710: 5043: 3627:

to one of the participants in the edit wars who is one of my alleged puppets but what followed really amazed me. I got

2968: 2606:

As I said, I don't know the ins and outs of the content dispute, so you are best solving it through a neutrally worded

2104: 2028: 683: 579: 177: 10291: 8356: 2172: 11841: 10043: 9930: 9910: 9877: 9364: 9176: 7956: 7690:

and the subsidiary pages for the Allied and Japanese forces are up for a peer review if you could find some time ...

6805: 5544: 5236: 4925: 2074:

sourcing, wording, level of detail and foreign language usage in related articles. Sorry for the confusion. Regards,

589: 173: 166: 118: 111: 9567:

This is an IP that you recently blocked for 36 hours. Since they were blocked and now cannot park their content on

8989:

updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria

5569:

Squadron), the article's talk page might be the best place to ask. It's on my watch list, so I'll see questions. --

1914:

Could you please have a look at the more recent changes, or better removal of cited information, from articles like

11358: 9913:

and advising me of any course corrections I should make. Nick came back to me saying that I should probably seek a

9792: 9476:

or are the names interchangeable? I was going to create the NSW Mounted Infantry page and keep coming up with fact

8422: 8054:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 8027:

Done, now. Apologies, I made a slight error during the move, but otherwise it should be as you requested. Regards,

6144: 5490:

page and have resorted to reaching out to a project coordinator for help. I would appreciate any insights. Thanks!

5314: 4511: 4295: 3594: 3550: 3509: 2696: 2655: 2595: 2545: 11089:. I won't be getting involved at this time as I am not in the right frame of mind to do so at this time. Regards, 4762: 4597:

Thank you for your swift action, AustralianRupert. I'm sorry that you may now have to suffer the backlash. As per

3287:

Thanks for this. I will get back on these things. It may take a bit of time. It will be the suburb of Canberra.

2788: 2787:

Hi, thanks for your work so far! Can you do me a favour though and always add every entry you do to the main list

11887: 11818: 11507: 10838: 9838: 9528: 9430: 9340: 9325: 9322: 9019: 8127: 7373: 6464: 6279: 5301: 5215: 5141: 4876: 4645:

Have you actually looked at the edit that "martinevans123" is making? Do you understand the core policy of NPOV?

3619: 3133: 3129: 2526:

recently changed it's legal registration in the bulgarian law system in order to participate in the newly formed

2449:

which changed its name to CSKA - Sofia this summer. Both teams existed simultaneously and played 46 games.......

2147: 1824: 1757: 11377: 6185:. This is my first attempt at a table. Might need a bit of massaging. It needs a home. Where do you think? 746:

Hello, I'd like to request my page be undeleted. I haven't had time to edit to add the source. Jayson 7/23/2016

10801: 9952: 9473: 8762:

G'day, nice work. Sorry, I will have to let you down. I am taking a break from reviewing for a while. Regards,

8071: 5990: 5690: 5648: 5292: 4864: 431: 5058:

Thank you very much for your time, I look forward to contributing to improving the pages on military history.

4315:(in fact, a carefully worded RFC might be the best option). Other options potentially also include starting a 11203: 10696:

should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.

10496: 10467: 10072: 9917:

ban for Johnvr4, because he's not open to any changes to 'his' articles at all - has total disagreement with

9550: 8921:

Make your case on the talk page. Continuing to make personal attacks like this is not constructive. Regards,

8839: 8814: 8797: 8360: 6073: 6041: 6020: 6000: 5706: 5478: 5006: 4907: 2193: 2100: 2068: 2024: 897: 10808:

of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

9007:

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

7299:

I addressed all your comments at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) review, cheers

2927: 1726:. This might draw more editors/eyes to the article, which might help with finding those citations. Regards, 11861: 11789: 11629: 11576: 11239: 11172: 11094: 11006: 10570: 10522: 10433: 10365: 10097: 10062: 10015: 9960: 9867: 9828: 9782: 9601: 9560: 9516: 9457: 9375: 9294: 9265: 9200: 9151: 9102: 9059: 8955: 8935:

The case is made on the talkpage before you intervened. This is a friendly warning not a personal attack.--

8926: 8898: 8859: 8828: 8767: 8734: 8724: 8562: 8523: 8406:

Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Knowledge, an

8210: 8140:

award recommendation, and that CPT Vanlandingham submitted himself for the medal, none of which are true.

8112: 8032: 7995: 7985: 7882: 7849: 7809: 7765: 7416: 7381: 7290: 7269: 7246: 7234: 7184: 7156: 7140: 6973: 6858: 6819: 6721: 6677: 6573: 6541: 6416: 6387: 6377: 6335: 6236: 6205: 6176: 6099: 6063: 6031: 5792: 5756: 5678: 5552: 5441: 5348: 5268: 5198: 5092: 5033: 4819: 4744: 4665: 4636: 4545: 4533: 4324: 3558: 3426: 3277: 3207: 3198:

G'day, certainly an interesting bloke...hard to say if the article would pass muster if someone sent it to

3157: 3068: 2937: 2897: 2811: 2768: 2739: 2686: 2678: 2619: 2505: 2210: 2079: 2013: 1943: 1899: 1731: 1562: 1497: 1487: 1445: 1345: 1119: 1042: 1017: 956: 868: 813: 777: 715: 673: 575: 568: 552: 483: 476: 461: 452:

As you are a paid publicist, you need to be very careful with managing your conflict of interest. As such,

377: 9801: 9370:

Unless they created it themselves, I would say it wouldn't really be in the spirit of the drive. Regards,

6554:. I can create a new Bot for you, but not before mid-January. It's hard to do Bot work while in vacation. 6251:

Hi, I’m just a little annoyer sending You an annoying message to annoy You with a pointless notification

4924:

Hi. You deleted the redirect under G6 to make way for a move, but the move hasn't been performed. I guess

2677:, but you do not feel able to write the article yourself, potentially you could request the article here: 11799: 11550:

Sorry about the last minute notice for when I was in Darwin - and if any chance to offer any thoughts? -

11182: 10383: 9970: 8425:

to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

8164: 8098: 7857: 7216: 7109: 6300:

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a

6130: 6123: 5948: 5941: 5210: 2345: 2043: 1791: 1311: 1086: 960: 893:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.

881:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history#Assessment of the articles regarding the heads of the forces.

823: 10495:

at A-class review, which is now a featured article. Thanks for helping me towards my first FA. Regards,

8978:

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its

6247:

Hi, I’m just a little annoyer sending You an annoying message to annoy You with a pointless notification

547:

G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks. Overall, it looks quite good. Thanks for your efforts. Regards,

11534:

The option is there, if it is too difficult, not offended - will be around till early afternoon Monday

9015: 8973: 7819: 6182: 5595: 4700: 3819: 2782: 2164: 2128: 1953: 1850: 1058: 979: 47: 38: 17: 9313:

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of

11521: 11227: 11106: 10693: 8796:

instead. Because, at least I knew I knew how to do that! Sorry to cause you extra work there though.

7588:. It gives a location for Gheluvelt pretty close to the geo coordinates I gave above. Look also at 6501:

when this need was posted to the Bot request page. Perhaps you know someone who might be interested?

6486: 4754: 3010: 1842:. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC) 407: 369: 4142:

was edited by 212.5.158.46 3 times on 12 September 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016.

3301:

I have had a go of the children / survived by or were you thinking of more info, such as when born?

1811:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective

1770: 11234:

as that will help you to stay within the site's guidelines regarding editing the article. Regards,

10747: 10325: 10250: 9385: 8940: 8912: 8883: 8533: 7117: 6272: 5315: 4650: 4621: 4606: 4588: 4568: 3628: 2563: 2457: 1919: 1437: 1418:

there were no ARVN combat forces in the battle. David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1052: 922: 798: 525: 8009: 3758:

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 22 August added info about the "current squad".

2099:

Thanks for clarifying. I wish Rupert good luck in solving the issue as soon as possible. Regards,

11614: 11136: 10408: 10309: 9536: 9529: 8508: 8197: 8175: 7695: 7687: 7656: 7599: 7546: 7502: 7457: 7304: 7150: 7125: 6220: 6190: 6119: 5937: 5777: 5733: 4834: 4361: 3358: 3306: 3292: 3254: 3240: 3222: 3188: 2953: 2916: 2881: 2823: 1927: 1159: 769: 564: 537: 472: 436: 358: 162: 107: 9819:

G'day, sorry it's not a topic I know enough about to comment with any certainty. Potentially an

8740: 8719:

G'day, the level of changes probably don't warrant semi-protection yet, in my opinion. Regards,

2428:

are now under protection due to disruptive editing. Ironically, the edit conflict was caused by

11738: 10977: 10951: 10703: 10206: 9905:

After long attempts to reason with Johnvr4, he split out of his userspace a section of the old

9727: 9082:

Hi again, worklist page can still be edited. Will it be protected before archiving it? Thanks,

8697: 8671: 8094: 7864: 7255: 7212: 7160: 7082: 6635: 6167: 5981: 5909: 4485: 4166: 4066: 3001: 2978: 2867: 2651: 2319: 2189: 1671: 1547: 1383: 1285: 1097: 1024: 1009: 967: 655: 612: 516: 446: 318: 210: 151: 11874:)--with your page title; maybe I'll get some input from across the pond. "Stevedore regiment" 8093:. A bit of advice :: when history-merging, always check the talk pages of the affected pages. 6427:

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

4536:

offers a variety of methods that can be used in such situations. Essentially it boils down to

3623:

on I conducted a little investigation about the Vivacom IPs. Everything started when I left a

2929:. Unfortunately, the AWM doesn't seem to list Maroubra Force in its holdings for war diaries: 1415:

No South Vietnamese military units were involved. Smallchief (talk 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

11857: 11785: 11625: 11572: 11404: 11235: 11168: 11090: 11076: 11032: 11002: 10751: 10730: 10566: 10539: 10518: 10429: 10361: 10321: 10093: 10058: 10011: 9956: 9891: 9863: 9824: 9778: 9597: 9512: 9453: 9400:

termplate. It was (is?) a great series but the only person listed in the template who passes

9371: 9290: 9261: 9196: 9147: 9098: 9055: 9011: 8951: 8922: 8894: 8855: 8824: 8763: 8720: 8558: 8519: 8233: 8206: 8152: 8108: 8028: 7981: 7947: 7929: 7878: 7805: 7761: 7412: 7377: 7342: 7286: 7265: 7230: 7180: 7136: 6969: 6942: 6854: 6815: 6717: 6673: 6569: 6537: 6506: 6412: 6401: 6373: 6347: 6331: 6232: 6201: 6095: 6059: 6027: 5788: 5752: 5723: 5697: 5674: 5591: 5574: 5548: 5538: 5437: 5432: 5395: 5344: 5264: 5186: 5088: 5029: 5007: 4972: 4962: 4815: 4740: 4661: 4632: 4555: 4541: 4320: 4139: 3915: 3554: 3437: 3422: 3410: 3273: 3203: 3153: 3064: 2933: 2893: 2807: 2764: 2735: 2682: 2615: 2501: 2206: 2155: 2090: 2075: 2009: 1939: 1895: 1727: 1558: 1483: 1441: 1426: 1398: 1341: 1115: 1038: 864: 809: 773: 711: 669: 548: 457: 373: 3386:

G'day, it is possible to cite such records and you could potentially use a template such as

792:

AustralianRupert, Not sure if you were aware of it, but K.e.coffman started a discussion at

368:

G'day, if the process is likely to be controversial, you can use the process outlined here:

11400: 11191: 10744:

ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.

10707: 10232: 9941: 9616: 9586: 9004:

for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

8873: 8005: 6254: 5399: 5197:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4289: 3588: 3503: 3175: 2643: 2589: 2539: 2185: 1177: 751: 9992:

For your dedication as MilHist coordinator, especially during March Madness 2017. Thanks!

3541:

G'day, frankly I also have concerns about dynamic IPs following your edits, such as here:

2708:. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. 8: 11894: 11825: 11774: 11603: 11199: 10336: 10295: 9437: 9408:

and he only because he later became a flag officer. There are some others who might pass

7718: 7670: 7633: 7613: 7565: 7517: 7471: 7432: 7395: 7352: 6692: 6617: 5609: 5495: 5362: 5326: 4860: 4792: 4602: 4564: 4537: 4522: 4307: 4276: 3142: 3118: 3092: 3052: 3043:

I also wonder whether regions like "Southern France" should have "southern" capitalized.

1972: 1369: 1354:

Well, there is already a list of Soviet divisions which includes mobilization divisions.

844: 3567:

BG89, the name of the sockpuppets can be seen in the history of the redirects, they are

11746: 11610: 11553:

At this stage I am in process of writing a report about discussions in Australia about

11150: 11126: 11054: 11020: 10991: 10959: 10763: 10755: 10449: 10404: 10391: 10300: 10256: 10214: 10092:

No worries, I will try to do what I can with it. Thanks for your help so far. Regards,

10082: 9800:

Hi, I pinged the Milhist coordinators with questions on the Ernest Hemingway talk page

9735: 9280: 9240: 9120: 8752: 8679: 8547: 8504: 8171: 8017: 7970: 7708: 7691: 7652: 7595: 7586: 7542: 7498: 7453: 7333: 7300: 7198: 7179:

You would then have to recreate the page when you decide to work on it again. Regards,

7168: 7121: 7090: 6959:

G'day, yes I see what you mean. If I change "2017" to "2016" it does indeed show up on

6843: 6790: 6707: 6649: 6559: 6393: 6297: 6216: 6186: 5917: 5773: 5766: 5741: 5660: 5357:

That's all right, you've been very busy this weekend. I'll look for some pics. Regards

5245: 5131: 5018: 4996: 4981: 4952: 4933: 4830: 4809: 4540:, so my advice is to try to establish consensus about the changes being made. Regards, 4493: 3723: 3455: 3369: 3351: 3302: 3288: 3266: 3250: 3236: 3218: 3184: 2912: 2877: 2436:, a page I created using exclusively sourced information. Unfortunately, he redirected 2399: 2355: 2327: 2057: 1987: 1923: 1787: 1712: 1679: 1359: 1329: 1321: 1317: 1293: 533: 387: 354: 326: 10403:

Without reading the article yet, I can say that i would be happy to provide a review.

9979: 9496: 7492: 7427:

It works but the references are for contemporary army maps not modern map coordinates.

3180:

Would appreciate any comment you might make on my rough draft re notability - see here

3109:

P.S. Regarding "strongpoint", I just did a search and found an article with the title

3027:, admits she is not a native speaker of English (making me wonder, though, about some 1756:. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, 1457:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force

11737:

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

10950:

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

10556: 10492: 10345: 10205:

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

9934: 9914: 9809: 9726:

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

9545: 9401: 9165: 9130: 8670:

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

8062: 7938:

Follow-up: there's apparently a 17-day delay before displaying new community GARs at

7913:

that's generated from those articles with a GARrequest template on their talk pages.

7860: 7853: 7280: 7252: 7081:

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

6631: 6321: 6163: 6158: 5977: 5972: 5908:

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

5623: 5460: 5415: 5173: 5155: 5063: 4928:

is the page that was supposed to be renamed, but what is the reason for the move?) --

4902: 4768: 4724: 4717: 4484:

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

3400: 3390: 3337: 3016: 2997: 2992: 2964: 2957: 2863: 2858: 2834: 2827: 2754: 2713: 2318:

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

1868: 1802: 1670:

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

1543: 1472: 1379: 1284:

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

1169: 1145: 1093: 1074: 1020: 963: 651: 608: 603: 512: 507: 344: 317:

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

206: 201: 147: 142: 9350: 6853:

G'day, no worries, I have archived it now also. Good luck with the GA nom. Regards,

5431:

G'day, from what I can tell, I don't think ANI is necessary for what is going on at

5052:

In the same manner, I quoted from a book on the talk page for the Battle of Dogali.

4759:

Hello, Australian Rupert -- Do you know anything about ships? I was just looking at

3790:

I don't think it's related to the other anonymous IPs which can be traced to Sofia.

1374:

Hi! Since your have been involved in MILHIST, could you help close this discussion?

11805: 11754: 10967: 10706:

that adding a link on a Knowledge forum to a job posting is not a violation of the

10222: 9794: 9767: 9743: 9502: 9485: 9210: 8687: 8539: 8229: 8186: 8148: 8051: 7943: 7925: 7902: 7098: 6954: 6938: 6926:, to the VeblenBot's GAR page, but it isn't showing up in the list there or on the 6922:

AustralianRupert, I just tried to add a recently created community assessment GAR,

6518: 6502: 6397: 5925: 5585: 5570: 5534: 5182: 4501: 4061: 3812: 3727: 3542: 2793: 2531: 2437: 2433: 2421: 2335: 2151: 1687: 1422: 1394: 1301: 729: 693: 526: 334: 11427: 10759: 8411: 2930: 11595: 11561: 11542: 11142: 9938: 9612: 9582: 9477: 9418: 8078: 8042: 7324: 6903: 6835: 6663: 6529: 5956: 4889: 4710:

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

4435:

Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I

4285: 4268: 4020: 3584: 3520: 3499: 3181: 2842: 2668: 2647: 2585: 2535: 2472: 2462: 2429: 1962:

Lead Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2016 – September 2017

1915: 1703: 1173: 1137: 491: 126: 8400: 1509: 46:

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

11880: 11811: 11770: 11764: 11554: 11470: 11373: 11037:

Hi! Could you help in resolving what for me is a case of article ownership for

10273: 9997: 9848: 9423: 9087: 9073: 9038: 8698: 7901:

page has been adjusted to use the new pages (AnomieBOT has its own pages under

7714: 7681: 7666: 7646: 7629: 7609: 7580: 7561: 7532: 7513: 7486: 7467: 7447: 7428: 7406: 7391: 7364: 7348: 6688: 6613: 6551: 6446: 6357: 5992: 5605: 5563: 5526: 5518: 5507: 5491: 5358: 5338: 5322: 5194: 4805: 4579: 4518: 4281: 4254: 3938: 3780: 3754: 3719: 3685: 3655: 3572: 3546: 3532: 3524: 3495: 3481: 3138: 3083: 3024: 2908: 2705: 2572: 2523: 2480: 2441: 2425: 2136: 1998: 1968: 840: 794:

Knowledge talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles

11688:

Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s

10077:

Sorry Rupert. When I nominated the article, I thought it was in better shape.

9759: 9578: 7625: 5130:

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

1128:

Wow, man. I'm confused. Are you seriously telling me Australia's wildlife is

11742: 11537:

otherwise I would be very interested in your ideas on the Strategy Process -

11462: 11385: 11353: 11231: 11219: 11162: 11146: 11122: 11086: 11050: 11038: 11016: 10987: 10955: 10445: 10419: 10387: 10356: 10210: 10078: 9918: 9820: 9731: 9409: 9276: 9236: 8748: 8675: 8543: 8192: 8013: 7966: 7962: 7921: 7898: 7780:

The pages about the 18th and 51st are certainly more consistent now, Thanks.

7608:

Fitzclarence Farm is a bull's eye, Cinders, you shall go to the ball! Regards

7329: 7194: 7164: 7086: 6964: 6927: 6839: 6786: 6703: 6645: 6555: 6525: 6497: 5913: 5737: 5656: 5391: 5380: 5257: 5241: 5190: 5014: 4992: 4977: 4948: 4929: 4598: 4556: 4489: 4312: 4306:

G'day, I appreciate you taking the time to sift through that, but I am not a

3735: 3694: 3451: 3443: 3381: 3365: 3199: 2674: 2611: 2607: 2492: 2395: 2351: 2323: 2094: 2053: 2002: 1983: 1708: 1675: 1355: 1325: 1289: 396:

page . Please get back to me as soon as possible .Briana Roy name is also on

322: 10741: 10517:

Thanks, Krishna, congratulations on taking the article through FA. Regards,

9886:! I'll be working on that article in earnest. It's good advice you gave.——→ 7411:

G'day, I've tried to correct the link. Please see if it works now. Regards,

4145: 4118: 4072: 4042: 3793: 3761: 3700: 3666: 3636: 11538: 11381: 11301: 10702:

regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included

10634: 10552: 10341: 10260: 10239: 9805: 9540: 9413: 9161: 9141: 9126: 8497: 8320: 8132:

Last week, someone went in from an IP address and made changes to parts of

8057: 7226: 6392:

Could I get the assistance of an admin like yourself to remove the article

6309: 6290: 6286: 6154: 6091: 5968: 5952: 5851:

Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War

5530: 5514: 5472:

Asking Questions regarding Specific Article on Project-Wide Discussion Page

5456: 5426: 5411: 5080: 5074: 5059: 4897: 4788: 4684:

Interview invitation from a Knowledge researcher in University of Minnesota

4194: 4095: 3896: 3576: 3447: 3114: 3088: 3048: 2988: 2854: 2838: 2750: 2725: 2709: 2496: 2446: 1877: 1864: 1723: 1468: 1141: 1108: 1070: 860: 599: 503: 487: 197: 138: 122: 8557:

G'day, yes I would say that it falls within the project's scope. Regards,

8459: 5947:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

2833:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

2139:, I'm letting you know about the community reassessment that I initiated. 482:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

117:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

11750: 11466: 10963: 10737: 10218: 9763: 9739: 9498: 9481: 9405: 8683: 8471: 8089:

across, although it contained relevant talk messages. I have moved it to

7094: 6533: 6496:

page directly; it controls which community reassessments are seen on the

5921: 5522: 5084: 4497: 3418: 3110: 2331: 2205:

G'day, Mooper, thanks! I'll try not to spend it all at once ;-) Regards,

1835:

carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.

1794:

was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following

1683: 1482:

G'day, Kirill Lokshin can usually help with this sort of stuff. Regards,

1297: 725: 705: 689: 456:

is a place where you might be able to get more specific advice. Regards,

330: 11279: 10612: 9933:

and tell me whether you believe you can act, and whether you consider a

8278: 5201:

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

3421:. Out of curiosity, which articles are you wishing to work on? Regards, 3332:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force

3318:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force

10740:

for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict

7828: 6899: 6749: 6659: 3984: 3968: 3954: 2146:, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the 988: 931: 9289:

G'day, seems ok to me if you are willing to put in the time. Regards,

6644:

And I'll be the second -- another great year for you, Rupert. Cheers,

6139: 2973: 2636:

Why Knowledge won't give Corey Fogelmanis a Knowledge page like thing?

584: 182: 10444:

Thanks both of you! I'm pretty certain the article is er Goodenough.

10285: 10269: 9993: 9844: 9823:

might be the best way to go to gauge what the consensus is? Regards,

9357: 9214: 9182: 9083: 9069: 9049: 9034: 8432: 8380:, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators. 7804:

G'day, yes that's a fair characterization of the situation. Regards,

6353: 6301: 6293: 5164: 4250: 3854: 3773:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016

3660: 3528: 3477: 2568: 2515: 2476: 350: 9677:

Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power

6756: 3775:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016

11529: 8986:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope

8745:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1

6781: 6766: 4206:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4157:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4130:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4107:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4084:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4054:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4002: 3805:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016

3712:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016

3571:

phone network dynamic IP's. The IP that again started to revert in

3341:

with another article. If you are interested, please participate in

3047:

of the article. Maybe you or Dead Mary will be able to find it. –

2050:

discussions regarding the notability of Knight's Cross (KC) holders

11624:

No worries at all. Thank you very much for your efforts. Regards,

10476: 10164:

Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line

6630:

Let me be the first to congratulate you, Rupert. Richly deserved!

6435: 5632: 4208:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4159:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4132:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4109:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4086:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

4056:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

3807:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016

3714:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016

3678:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016

3663:

on 3 September 2016. TV Boy has edited the article over 10 times.

3648:

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016

2704:

G'day Rupert, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at

11441: 11414: 10784: 10717: 8982:. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas: 8387: 8047: 4890: 3680:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 7 October 2016

3650:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016

3568: 9255:

WPMILHIST Announcements/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history

6365: 4210:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

4161:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

4134:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

4111:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

4088:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 5

4058:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

3809:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

3777:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

3751:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 0

3716:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2

3682:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2

3652:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2

3624: 2614:. Continuing to edit war won't solve anything, though. Regards, 9317:

into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place

8704:

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent unsourced content?

6877: 6596: 5204:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

4272: 3837: 3787: 3323: 2373: 1777: 630: 11336: 10677: 8339: 4696: 11111: 3873: 3579: 3113:. So, it is a word in English, and a valid military term. – 724:

OK, excellent. I've just started the GA nomination. Regards,

11268: 11254: 10804:

page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an

10601: 10593: 10533:

MILHIST/ not MILHIST (talk page stalkers welcome to act too)

8267: 6814:

Thanks, Donner, all the best for 2017 to you, too. Regards,

6072:

Shall I renominate the article? Is it good enough? Regards,

5961: 4734:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3697:

on 1 August 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016

2847: 2048:

Heh, don't worry Krishna, I believe Rupert was referring to

768:

G'day, I will put what content was in the article into your

496: 131: 11555:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017

5455:

to trolls to screw it up either. That's all I guess. Tks.

2559: 2453: 1092:

seems more constructive than just getting rid of it to me.

11539:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Strategy_2017

10156:

Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry

6058:

G'day, nice work. Those changes look good to me. Regards,

9339:

This message has been automatically sent to all users in

6440: 3015:

Hello, Australian Rupert -- I just finished copy-editing

2763:

No worries at all, certainly a worthy campaign. Regards,

2182:

Your Pal, MooperVeltresleex 18:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

1958: 1621:

Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare

7585:

See map of Gheluvelt area (25th to 27th August 1917) in

6330:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Redolta. Regards,

4692: 4578:

It would be appropriate to remind "martinevans123" that

3272:

so it doesn't quite clarify it for the reader. Regards,

2673:

G'day, if you believe that the subject meets the site's

2562:, the supreme administrative body of European football. 2135:

Hi, since you participated in the review of the article

1464:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

1235:

Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites

10909:

Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I

5590:

Thanks for the quick replies and offers of assistance,

5185:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1376:

Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang#RfC:_Insertion_of_South_Vietnam

9882:

Thank you for taking your time adding suggestions for

6924:

Knowledge:Good article reassessment/Codename: Gordon/1

6550:

VeblenBot GAR functionality is not on the VeblenBot's

5127:

but very often a friendly custom message works best.

1061:- IMO, the idea of sourcing is not to find stuff that 11870:

Thanks. I'll go--but not this evening (busy watching

11672: