User talk:Anotherclown

12 April 2018

Archives

Dec 08 – Jul 09 Aug 09 – Dec 09 Jan 10 – Jun 10 Jul 10 – Dec 10 Jan 11 – Jun 11 Jul 11 – Dec 11 Jan 12 – Jun 12 Jul 12 – Dec 12 Jan 13 – Jun 13 Jul 13 – Dec 13 Jan 14 – Jun 14 Jul 14 – Dec 14 Jan 15 – Jun 15 Jul 15 – Dec 15 Jan 16 – Jun 16 Jul 16 – Dec 16

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For "...ongoing efforts in reviewing articles at GAN and A-class Review", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi @Anotherclown, thanks for welcoming me to the MILHIST. I've been working on military history for about a year and half. Never thought about joining until recently. This is the sort of article I work on: B-Dienst. A secret German WW2 organization. Although I never created it, it was slightly more than a stub when I started to expand it, but it's taken about a year and half to get to this stage, with a couple of months will finish it. It's involved loads of research, visits to organizations, email to many people and mail to many other organizations like NARA, British Museum, Bild Archive, JSTOR and T&L and so on. It's been excellent and absolutely worth the effort. Then I start on this: General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, which will be bigger again. It was a very large and secret German WW2 organization. I'm looking forward too it. Happy New Year. scope_creep (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again. Looks like quite an undertaking! Best of luck with it all. Obviously you've been around for a bit but if you do need any assistance leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as there are usually a few knowledgeable editors that can make suggestions or pitch in to help etc. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 11 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hey. I think I've asked you before, and I know Nick-D has, but do you have any interest yet in becoming an administrator? It's a pretty good time to run right now, and I think you'd be a great candidate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ed. I have considered it on a few occasions as I certainly appreciate the important job the administrators do around here. That said, real life often precludes me from doing as much on Wikipedia as I would like to so I don't think that I would be able to give it enough attention to justify everyone's time and effort at RFA even if I were to be successful. Thanks all the same. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day, TAG East did Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006 - source Micheal Head is wrong. Rugby World cup was in Sydney and other places so TAG East area as well. Is there a point to listing each event? the TAG whatever parent unit covers all major events, deploys to area and conducts familiarisation training. The list is long and expanding all the time. Unless, there is something exceptional such as the Olympics I don't see a point to include them. The Olympics they received major funding beforehand, new equipment, learnt new skills and had a second squadron. The Tactical Assault Group article lists all the taskings, however, I don't see a need there to keep listing as well. A lot of them are already not included in that list. The domestic security role never increased post 2001, it was always very important. In the 1980s war roles suffered, formed a dedicated squadron, the Olympics pre 2001 huge can't increase from that. . Regards --Melbguy05 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G'day, thanks for the note. I agree there is no need to list each event / every involvement and the article doesn't do that anyway (it only lists two). To me there is value in providing readers with a few examples of these taskings and the events currently listed seem like major international events to me (Commonwealth Games and Rugby WC). I could understand removing this information if there was a need for brevity but essentially we are talking about half a sentence to provide context. Finally you mention that Head is wrong about Melbourne 2006 - is there a source which says they were not involved (I accept it is hard to prove a negative so maybe not)? Admittedly a quick look in Blaxland (p. 311) does say 4 RAR provided the TAG; however, he says it was part of a Special Forces Task Group and doesn't mention what other components this included). Anotherclown (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TAG E went operational from July 2002 with the exception of the Pong Su in April 2003 which has been stated as including SAS I believe they have covered all East Coast incidents and events. Hugh O'Brien's book who served in TAG-E states TAG-E did Commonwealth Games. The Police Tactical Groups now send officers interstate for events - one benefit of the TAG taking control of an incident was having a large number of operators - even NZ police coming to Australia. I have read that the SAS have more expertise with GOPLAT but Bass Strait is in the TAG-E area.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree there are certainly several sources that say TAG-E was there so no doubt you are right about that but do we know what other force elements were part of the SFTG on that occasion? The two don't seem mutually exclusive as I'd suppose it was possible SASR also provided elements. Perhaps that explains the Head reference? Anotherclown (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eastern States are clearly TAG-E. Despite standing up in 2002, it would have taken several years for the capability to mature requiring SASR elements. By 2006, this should have been achieved. It would be misleading to state Commonwealth Games giving a reader an impression it was their responsibility. If you look at the Olympics for example only one Squadron was required with a backup in Perth. I haven't read Head yet. If an example is to be used for TAG-W it would be CHOGM 2011 in Perth.--Melbguy05 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • TAG-E involvement in the Commonwealth Games in 2006 is not at all in dispute so lets please move past that. The issue was about whether SASR was also involved, i.e. potentially as one of the other FE of the task group. The wording used never stated SASR provided the TAG in 2006 just that it formed part of the security force so I don't agree that it was misleading in that sense. That said on reviewing Head again although he mentions both 2003 RWC and 2006 Commonwealth Games his wording about specific SASR involvement is not as explicit as I remembered it to be. As such I have removed them both as examples and replaced them with CHOGM 2002 and Bush's visit in 2003 (mentioned in the GG speech in 2004 and McPhedran p 118 which I have cited). I would like to include more recent examples but this is all I could lay my hands on at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • (talk page stalker) There's an outline order of battle of the forces involved in protecting the 2006 Commonwealth Games on page 6 of this ASPI report. It states that the Special Forces Task Group comprised TAG-E "and supporting elements", a squadron from the IRR and the 171st Aviation Squadron, so I presume that no formed SASR units took part (though presumably some individual members of the regiment were present in various roles?) Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for digging up that reference Nick, it does seem fairly definitive. At any rate I've removed the mention of SASR involvement in Operation Acoylte per my cmt above, as even if there were individuals from the regiment there (which is nothing more than a guess on my part now it seems) I agree it would be overstating things to retain it. In all honesty this seems likely to have been a case of me misinterpreting the Head source. Self administering upper cut / Facepalm. Anotherclown (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • G'day, "domestic security role increased after" 9/11. I don't think that for the SASR it did increase. For Defence, Yes it did greatly raising a second TAG for the east coast 4RAR and maintaining a capability to respond to biological, chemical attacks etc.. the CBR Response Squadron that had been formed for Olympics (from memory it was disbanded or less resourced at least). Nothing changed significantly for the SASR except training the TAG-E and developing tactics to respond to a new form of terrorist the suicide bomber for example. --Melbguy05 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Deployments of the TAGs to protect major events (with the associated allocation of resources well before the event to planning, training at the venues, etc) appear to have been rare before 2001, but have been standard practice since then. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've had another go at rewording the information from Head to (hopefully) be a bit closer to the meaning implied by the source - changes here [1]. Melbguy05 - does this resolve your concern or could it be further clarified? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • G'day, that wording is alright. Most events are on the east coast so 2 Cdo gets all the good stuff. I reckon in the future that section wording probably will be very important post 9/11 would be when 4 Sqn was raised but there is nothing published on dates - from a combination of overseas deployments and domestic responsibilities - high tempo. Your prior to 2001 TAG events are:- 1981 CHOGM in Melbourne, 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane and the Olympics. Page 12 [[2]] On something else, I was going to have a go at rewriting the History - Early years. David Horner found that when it was setup it had no role set for it, etc.. wasn't based on 22SAS (Horner said very strange to form a military unit with no stated role, training guidelines, selection guidelines etc..). You had US trained special forces officers for several years. It was based on 1 and 2 CMF Commando structure for a long while. (All this would probably surprise most readers). It is still not clear for certain why it was established Horner spoke with several Generals (the article states after observing the operations of the British SAS in Malaya) - but Horner didn't conclude that. There was the newspaper journalist who had been in the British SAS making waves and I did find some of his newspaper articles. Then the Governor General's son was serving in British SAS and transferred to Australia. Both of them were pushing. Not sure you could say as in the article that it drew on the experiences of Z Force, Independent Companies, etc.. with no role, training, selection. That was the reason given for setting up 1 & 2 Cdo Companies back in 1954 to not lose those WW2 skills. There is a lot stuff in the National Archives I have found that has not even been reviewed for release yet - so I doubt Horner read this stuff it is more HQ documents. A lot to read/research for someone. Robert Macklin in his 2015 book Warrior Elite had a go - not very good rehash of Horner's book trying to work out why it was established. Years later a lot of ex Z Special Forces and Independent Companies guys became involved helping out with courses I might have read that in Mick's Malone book. Same goes for the 1 Cdo Regt history - from book Strike Swiftly - it's still not known the background for raising the 1 and 2 Cdo Coy's who made the decision and why - that I think will be tied up in ASIS history that is not for release papers in the National Archives (ASIS was in military then). The ASIS Royal Commission history documents with this info have been exempted for release blacked out/redacted. There were two proposals for ASIS either a British WW2 SOE / SAS/ Commando type special forces unit (one army officer had been pushing since late 1940s for a special forces unit) or for a MI6 style intelligence unit in the end they amalgamated the two teams who had been sent to Britain for a study tour and they both came up with the one proposal. I've put the 1 Cdo Regt history in the too hard basket the same as the SASR. There are some documents worth reading in the National Archives if someone wanted to. There is a 152 Sig Sqn history book from the 2000s I haven't read yet it might have something in it on the history. In the SASR article, pre-Borneo, you could say the SASR became more based on 22SAS going to Squadron structure (when became a Regt) and started training similar to 22SAS and importantly there had been a request from the 22SAS CO for the Aussie SAS and the CO had travelled to Australia to meet SAS and also forming of the 2 CMF Cdo Coys. All depends on how much detail that needs to put into an article as well. I suppose its not be book just an article. Cheers, --Melbguy05 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown, 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 WP:GAR page has been adjusted to use the new pages (AnomieBOT has its own pages under User:AnomieBOT/C): User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment, and also the User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review that's generated from those articles with a GARrequest template on their talk pages.

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 User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment, but all the 2017 ones do get transcluded on WP:GAR, which is the important thing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: there's apparently a 17-day delay before displaying new community GARs on the User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. If you have time, could you possibly give the FAC nomination of the Siege of Arrah article a look? I'd appreciate some fresh eyes - as far as I'm aware, you & I have had no prior interaction - before the FAC nomination sinks to the bottom of the page! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. No problem I'll have a look over it now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fresh pair of eyes, they're most welcome. The article has a long way to go but at least the citations are sorted out. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it is good to see the article get some attention. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

about great white in melb and syd as sep arts ?? I asked nick he said he thought sydney was worth it - any thoughts? JarrahTree 13:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. Actually I wonder if they might all be covered in a single article instead? Perhaps Great White Fleet in Australia in 1908, or something along those lines. I definitely think the topic is viable, but wonder if it might become a bit disjointed to cover each port call separately. Also (and I admit I have no knowledge of the level of coverage the topic has received) but I can't help but be concerned that as separate articles they might be perceived by some as having notability issues. Anotherclown (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I based the albany one on a booklet produced in albany, and then seeing the lack of detail about the australian visits in the main article suggested something needed to be done - and your response is very useful - good points, from my understanding of maritime history, and western australian maritime history, the fact that was the largest collection of floating objects in princess royal, apart from the flotilla leaving in 1914, It would be good to keep the albany article - (even if it was 08 and 14 as a combined) (as albany as a port was in permanent decline to fremantle competition of after those 2 events) - even if it was a fork of a larger australian one about the great white - but I can see your argument and appreciate it - thanks JarrahTree 14:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Best of luck with the project. Anotherclown (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the encouragement - it would be good to see yours and nicks further thoughts if and when either an oz or sydney and melbourne great white one eventuate, or not - what I have seen of the trove refs I have checked so far could go either way - oz or indiv ports... but the albany one could easily stretch between the two bigs fleets in port... I have the late michael peason's 'indian ocean' out of a library at the moment - are you aware of him or frank broeze? both maritime hist uni persons in perth many years ago - v inspiring about the freo and albany role in oz shipping... JarrahTree 15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't read anything from either of those chaps. Certainly I'd be happy to have a quick look over any article on the topic you come up with if you think it would help. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - thanks for your offer - appreciate the support JarrahTree 23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

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.

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

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.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

		Military history service award
		For your efforts during March Madness 2017, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thank you for your contributions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of four Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings, If you don't mind looking, what options have I got left that don't formally involve administrators? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Keith. If you don't think the matter needs Admin intervention and it primarily boils down to a disagreement about content by editors acting in good faith you might consider using the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process to request broader input into the specific aspects of content that either party thinks should be included / not included, reduced / expanded etc. This could help to clarify what consensus there might be and *hopefully* allow the article to move forward. If that doesn't work you could try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard). I've not had any first hand experience of this though so can't say how useful (or otherwise) the process is. Sorry I haven't really been following the issue closely so this advice is mostly generic and might be off the mark. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, If I asked for something specific I have might cross the line into canvassing, which is something I leave to others. The suggestions above are what I was after. What I want to do is work on the rest of the article while I'm procrastinating over the last 3rd Ypres article so I'm working in a sandbox to be able to plonk sections in, hoping to avoid a revert frenzy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day, AC, do you have does Ian Downs' The New Guinea Volunteer Rifles NGVR 1939–1943? If you do, would you mind checking it to see if it covers any of the cite needed tags in William T. Owen? I did a Google Books search for Owen and Rabaul and that source came up in snippet view. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evening, yes I do. I'll see what I can do now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what I can now. Unfortunately there are still a few cn tags outstanding. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also this block log.155.143.77.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a record of using socks puppets.It also means that he will only change the new IP to continue the same editor.Like 49.197.239.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or this. --O1lI0 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think I've seen similar editing patterns elsewhere too. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The battles of Maehwa-San and Uijeongbu have been edited by a person via a mobile device and I do not necessarily agree with edits. Could you cast your eye over them and give an opinion or revert. Removing the South Korean and United States from the infobox of Maehwa-San could mean a reader doesn't understand that the battle included elements of those nations. Not sure about British Commonwealth removal from Uijeongbu. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away on holiday and so haven't looked at WP for the past couple of weeks. Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts in combatting the socks of MIG29VN while I was off air. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. No problems, fortunately it seems there are a few editors that are aware of the issues here. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I think this ip 14.228.188.113 belongs to MIG29VN, same major changes after your previous revert. regards 103.9.116.113 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Anotherclown (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, I hope you don't mind me removing that book you added to the further reading section of the No. 18 (Netherlands East Indies) Squadron RAAF article. Not sure if you've read it, but I found it to be terrible! While it's being marketed as a serious work of history, the author states in the introduction that its actually about semi-fictionalised members of the squadron. The focus then is on their love lives. The Wikipedia article has more information on the squadron. Not that I'm bitter about spending $35 on it or anything ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Nick - I haven't read it yet (and won't bother now either!). Yes I agree it makes sense to remove it based on that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AC,

A couple of points:

1. There were four large scale PAVN attacks on Quang Tri City during the war in which PAVN forces overran and occupied the city: April 6, 1967 - regimental sized forces; January 30/31 - January 1/2 1968 (Tet) regimental sized forces; May 1972 and forward (Easter Offensive) division sized forces; March, 1975 in the final North Vietnamese offensive division sized forces. In addition, there was the effort in September, 1972 (division sized forces) to recover Quang Tri City and Quang Tri Province. That is altogether five battles of Quang Tri, not two (and note that Gen. Truong's counter attack to retake Quang Tri began at the end of June, 1972 - that is, the "1st Battle of Quang Tri" ran from May through September and ended in a South Vietnamese victory. Even if there was a lull between May and the end of June, the 1st phase was not divorced from the second).

The current numbering system is therefore confused and confusing. One could argue for something like "1972 Easter Offensive; 1st Battle of Quang Tri" and "1972 Easter Offensive; 2nd Battle of Quang Tri" with the others numbered by year (1967, 1968, 1975). Otherwise your "1st Battle of Quang Tri" is really the "3rd Battle of Quang Tri"

2. You should take charge and straighten out the opposing troop numbers and casualty numbers given in the data box in the upper right hand corner of the "1st Battle of Quang Tri" article, then close it off from editing.

3. The total number of regiments in the 3rd Division was 3, not 2: The 2nd; the 56th; and 57th. ARVN Divisions had a nominal size of about 11,000, including combat and non-combat support elements, but were often undermanned. A Vietnamese Marine brigade would have had a nominal size of about 3,000 including support elements. There were two BATTALIONS of Vietnamese rangers in Quang Tri, NOT two GROUPS. Vietnamese Ranger battalions had a nominal size of about 1,000, including support elements. This gives a maximum number of regular forces, I believe, of about 20,000 at their nominal manning levels; adding in the two armored units, the total number of regulars would have been about 26,000 at their nominal size (actual strength would have been lower).

4. In 1973 the total of combat ready and strategically deployed Regional Force troops in the Republic was about 300,000. It is not likely that a full 1/3 of them were in Quang Tri Province. The number would have been closer to 7,000 to 8,000. Popular Forces and police would have added to that, but they would not have been effective against PAVN units, and adding in their numbers still won't get you to 40,000 allied troops in the province as claimed in the box.

5. Total ARVN deaths for the entire year 1972 were about 40,000. The total of ARVN KIA during the Easter Offensive countrywide was between 8,000+ to 10,000, according to a variety of sources.

6. The PAVN suffered total casualties of about 100,000 during their offensive, with at least 40,000 of them KIA. The disparity was largely a result of American air and naval power that was deployed against them. Taking the maximum possible number of South Vietnamese KIA against the smallest likely number of PAVN KIA gives a ratio of 1 to 5. If you apply that ratio to claimed PAVN KIA in the article (14,000+), you get 2,800 South Vietnamese KIA.

7. According to DRV statistics, their ratio of KIA to WIA was one to one. If the 14,000+ number is correct, it would mean that the total casualties in the fighting would have been 28,000+ - more than the manpower of two of the three divisions claimed in the article as present - 304th, 308th, and 324B. But the 324B Division was NOT in Quang Tri Province. It was in Thua Thien Province advancing on Hue, an advance that was defeated by the South on May 5th (there were two other PAVN divisions with 324B). Thus, if the 14,000+ number is correct, PAVN would have lost in KIA more troops in Quang Tri Province than they in fact deployed there. You can see where all of this takes you.

8. Despite the spotty performance of the ARVN 3rd Division, the fighting in Quang Tri went on for the entire month of May, and ARVN counter-attacked one month later. The article is overly simplified with no explanation of how and why it took the PAVN a full month to conquer the province if the 3rd Division fought as badly as claimed.

I would consult with a competent historian like Bruce Davies (Australian) who has the expertise to correct the problems with the article and provide sourcing.Sciacchitano (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day thanks for taking the time to list the issues with this article, unfortunately though I'm not in a position to be able to assist here as it's well beyond my expertise. Perhaps you might post this information on the article's talk page so that other editors can assist if they are able to? Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of eight Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks very much for adding your support here Anotherclown, I appreciate it. Can I ask, what will happen when no-one comes along to add any more comments let alone supports? Clearly, that's what's going to happen :) it just strikes me that, then, the procedure will have wasted a few people's time with no benefit to the project. Know what I mean? — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving pings, sorry) 12:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. We should be able to promote the article once it gets three supports (assuming there are no opposes). The procedure is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but there's not going to be another review, let alone a support. What happens then? — fortunavelut luna 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that its close to having enough support to be promoted we now generally just keep reviews like this open until they eventually gain the third support. The previous 28 day time limit has not be applied in a very long time in my experience so we don't need to be concerned about that (indeed we kept the last review open for four months). Potentially it can be possible to promote with just two supports in an IAR situation if the non-involved co-ordinators agree (this has happened but is fairly rare). If another review isn't forthcoming shortly I'll approach a few regulars to see if they are willing to have a look. Anotherclown (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ac- apologies if it came across as holding you personally responsible- that was no way my intention. I'm probably jyst reacting to the fact that the last one stayed open for so long and was my fault. No rush eh! Thanks for all your help and advice though. — fortunavelut luna 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite understandable given how slow our review process is nowdays (lamentably a product of the limited number of regular reviewers available at the moment). Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! As you say, it's nothing compared to four months ;) take care, — fortunavelut luna 09:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update- well, it's beeen a rollercoaster  ;) where do you think we're at now, Ac? Hope you're well! — fortunavelut luna 10:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again. Sorry I haven't replied for a while - I've been busy offline of late. Good to see this article has now been promoted! Thanks for persevering with the process and best of luck taking this one forward. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a cursory glance through our current coordinator pool I notice you don't have access to the rollback tool. Would you be interested in acquiring it? I can grant it to you, and it could be useful both within and outside of MILHIST. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: G'day. Yes please - I can see that being helpful in some circumstances. Anotherclown (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, its been activated. Enjoy! TomStar81 (Talk) 11:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for creating the useful file "Battle of Elands River 4-16 August 1900.png". I uploaded it to commons[3] and you can perhaps comment there as to why it can be considered free. I don't have the source book at hand to compare it directly, and not sure how original it is. Also, perhaps you can change "Reit valley" to "Riet valley", the latter is a better version of the original farm name, which was probably "Riet Valley" (meaning "reed valley"), and which is still known as "Rietvallei" today. And a minor point: the telegraph line seems to have approached the road from the northwest, if I look at these two maps.[4][5] JMK (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a concern that it isn't free? Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Aust-Army-RSMA.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your continued efforts in reviewing and content improvement, despite a hectic personal life I am pleased to personally award you with this barnstar and add you to my 2017 New Years Honours List. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Military History. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Happy to try and help where I can. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Krishna. Sorry I'm a bit late but Merry Christmas! Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Season's Greetings to you too (sorry its belated). Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of seven Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks PM. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Shields image

First I need to thank you for the greeting you posted when I joined the MILHIST project. This will be my first contact with the project

I have had an editor remove this picture of Marvin Glenn Shields from two separate articles stating it had a copyright by a newspaper. The image is at the Seabee Museum and is property of the U.S. Navy. I told this to the other editor and undid their edit stating that whoever posted the image to Wikipedia did not know what they were doing. They did however correctly post that the image is U.S.Navy property. The image is not the work of any newspaper and a newspaper can not have a copyright of a US Navy photo. Now the other editor removed it again using a different ID. They then went into my sandbox and removed it from the current article I am working on. My opinion is that this was vandalism. Would you give me your thoughts. Can I simply get the image from the CB archives and post it again to Wikipedia?(that really seems like a waste memory space for Wikipedia)

Marvin Shields is the only Seabee to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. His image is completely relevant the the Seabee article. And, Tuesday past, the Public Affairs Officer for NMCB 11 posted a "Special Request" on my talk page requesting that I do an article for the battalion. NMNCB 11 was the unit Marvin Shields was in and his image is relevant for that article also.

Thank you for your time, it is very much appreciated. Brian Matter Mcb133aco (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Mcb133aco: G'day, not sure if AC is around at the moment (pretty sure he's working this week), but I might be able to help. Regarding the removal of the image, it is best to assume good faith. I don't believe it was vandalism, as the image license currently is not compatible for how it was being used, so the editors involved are only doing what they believe is correct. However, it may be that the fair use licence is incorrect and needs to be changed to a public domain license. The issue is currently being discussed here: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Marvin_Shields.jpeg, which might be the best place for you to pose your questions. If you can provide definitive proof that it is a US Navy photograph (either via a link to an official database, or an official email from the Navy for instance), the image license could be changed to a public domain license and then the image could be used in multiple articles. However, if it can't be proven, then fair use laws do require that it is used only sparingly (which is why it was removed from your sandbox). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering this AR. Apologies for my tardiness in answering Mcb133aco, as Rupert said I've been busy with work and study. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

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.

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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MHIST is being featured again. You are welcome to respond here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: This is just a quick note to let you know that I have decided to take an indefinite break from Wikipedia. As such I am standing down as a MILHIST coordinator as a result. Thank you to all the editors I have had the pleasure of working with over the years. As a collective you have achieved a great deal. I wish you all the very best for the future. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, Anotherclown. You've been an absolute stalwart, a major contributor across the board in so many areas. Hopefully you'll come back after a break, but if not, it's been great knowing you on-wiki. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your contributions over the years. It's been a pleasure working with you on a range of articles, and I've always appreciated your feedback in reviews and the like. Best wishes Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll miss you Another; I hope that the break does you good. Tally ho! Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the best AC, I really appreciated your feedback and guidance when I started here and learned a lot from you. I hope to see you back here at some point, the project is the poorer for your absence. Zawed (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the best, mate. I'm sorry to see you go, but also I envy you, too, as it feels like my last batting partner has just been run out, leaving me stranded... Anyway, thanks for all your hard work on Wiki, and I hope that we can catch up for a beer in the real world soon. (You know my wife blames you for getting me involved on this site, don't you?) Cheers, old man. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anotherclown, we may have had a rocky start but I think we are well over that. 1st Mountain Battery (Australia) was perhaps one of the best collaborations I have seen on WP. It is a sterling example of which you were a key contributor. I sincerely wish you all the best. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, AC - you've been an integral part of the project for as long as I can remember. We'll carry on without you, but we won't be any better off for it. Best of luck, and I hope to see you again. Parsecboy (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to add to the above except ... I hope you know that the light you have shed on this project will never fade, and you'll be welcome in any discussion, at any time. Drop by from time to time to let us know how your life is going. Take care. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The place won't be the same without you AC but nobody's earned a break more than you. I know you wouldn't have taken the decision lightly and hope this is only temporary and we see you back when you feel the time's right. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Until we meet again: Goodbye, Farewell and Amen. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		For your contributions to the Military History project over the better part of a decade, please accept these WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves as a token of the project's thanks. We wish you well in your future endeavours. Thanks for your efforts. For the co-ordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of three Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Anotherclown,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:3rd 4th Cavalry Regiment.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file namespace redirect shadowing a page on Commons, and this redirect has no incoming file links.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, would you be able to have a quick look at the Dieppe Raid page and let me know where it falls down for A-Class so I can put in a bit of effort to clean it up? Enderwigginau (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enderwigginau: G'day, I hope you are well. Please be advised that unfortunately AC has retired from Wikipedia. Regarding the article, for A-class I would suggest that the article's referencing would need to be improved (minimum of a citation at the end of each paragraph). Additionally, the "clarification" and "citation needed" tags would need to be addressed and removed. Once that is achieved, I'd suggest probably putting it through a peer review or good article nomination before taking it to ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate

Enderwigginau (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Hey mate! My first time messaging someone of Wiki...i actually signed up for this purpose. I'm a currently serving member in the Australian Army working on a history project RE Long Tan. Are you able to contact me here or on simonc.1919@gmail.com in regards to some of the work you've done on the Wikipedia page for the Battle Of Long Tan? Would love to chat and the Aus Army History Unit (AAHU) would certainly benefit. All the best. Your Mother1919 (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Mother1919: G'day, welcome to Wikipedia. Please be advised that unfortunately Anotherclown has retired from Wikipedia. I will pass your message on to him offline, though, but can't guarantee that he will get in contact. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"another clown" not another clown

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2665 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unbh (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:No 77 Sqn RAAF Meteor During Korean War (AWM JK0243).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]