User talk:AustralianRupert

I'll reply to your message here.

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So please add it to your watchlist;
• If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will add your talkpage to my watchlist, so please reply to my message there instead of here;
• Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing an incredible total of 38 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To my Mate in Oz

Thank you for fielding Pendright's concerns on my talk page. Pendright often asks me for advice on articles he is working on. I became familiar with his work when he was working on the Coast Guard's SPARS article. I appreciate your help on his efforts to get the articles he works on to GA or A class. I commend you for your efforts to keep the Milhist Project one of the best projects on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware the I had any page stalkers following my efforts! I have been busy with the after effects of the death of my wife in November, and while her death was not totally unexpected it still changed my daily routine. She had suffered from the effects of multiple sclerosis for the last twenty years. She was a good old gal and always had a sense of humor even in her last days. I shall miss her. My contributions to Wikipedia have fallen off recently as I was caretaker for my wife and had other life concerns to take care of. I mostly patrolled articles for vandalism and simple formatting problems. With the new year I may be able to get back in formation with some more regular contributions like review of articles in the Milhist Project. My jeep restoration project which I originally took of from Wikipedia for has been completed and I plan to take some time this fall for a trip to the Colorado mountains with one of my brothers. He was a Vietnam veteran like myself and we have a lot in common.

I noticed that you have had a change of duty stations at some time in the last year or so. I hope your new duties in the north of Australia are challenging without being too onerous. I trust your family is all well and with you at your new assignment. You have certainly taken on more than your fair share of Wikipedia tasks recently and I hope that you don't have burnout on that score. The Project would miss your contributions and leadership. Again, thanks for standing in my stead for Pendright. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cuprum17: G'day, mate, the family is well, thanks for asking. Our three-month-old is keeping us on our toes, though, as is the three-year-old. I am really sorry to hear about your wife passing. Please accept my condolences. It must be very hard to adjust after being with someone for such a long period of time, to not have them around anymore. Equally, it must have been very hard watching someone you love suffer so much. I hope that 2018 will bring you better fortune. Regarding my posting in Darwin, actually this is my fourth year here now. It is very different from my previous postings (which were mainly on the eastern seaboard, and in the south), but it has been quite enjoyable. After a couple of years in a command role, and then ops/plans, I have a new role this year, which will be a bit challenging (battalion/regimental XO and ADJT) so I suspect that I will be pretty busy but in a very different way. I still have a week of leave left, but after that I will be scaling back my time online again. Anyway, all the best. Take care of yourself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Query about speedy deletion of Halitrephes page

Hi. So I recently edited the page on Halitrephes maasi. I saw a notification on the talk page of the article's creator speedy delete tagging an article they'd created called Halitrephes. The reason was that it was a duplicate article of Halitrephes maasi. This seems incorrect. Halitrephes maasi is the species, while Halitrephes is the genus of that species. They are two different topics. Further I'm skeptical one editor would have created two articles on the exact same thing. I was going to comment on the talk page of the deleting admin requesting undeletion, but I see that the reason you've given for deletion is G7 as opposed to duplicate article. As such I'm wondering if you could check whether there is anything worth salvaging and whether you think undeleting is worthwhile in the circumstances? Brustopher (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Brustopher, it was G7ed as it was blanked by its author. From what I can tell it was very similar to Halitrephes maasi page, with the same WORMS reference and pretty much the same opening (and only) sentence (with a slightly different final clause mentioning "East of Socorro Island" rather than "the Peruvian part of the South Pacific Ocean"). Probably not much to gain with undeleting it, IMO. The only real improvement in the deleted article, IMO, was the presence of an extra image (File:Halitrephes Maasi.jpg). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sir John Monash Centre

Good afternoon, AustralianRupert. I've had a look at the above, following a request from the editor on the AfC Helpdesk. I absolutely agree that the sources as they stood didn't support Notability independent of the Villers–Bretonneux Australian National Memorial. However, I've added about a dozen, and I think they might do now. It's a A$100 million project and also has some Notability due to the centenary opening this April. I didn't want to Accept without giving you an opportunity to express a view, so if you had a chance to take a look, I'd very much appreciate it. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article. I don't have a drama if you wish to publish it. I'm still not sure that it is independently notable from the memorial, but I agree the draft has been significantly improved and is acceptable for publication. There may be more coverage when it's launched, also, which might help expand it a bit more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated - I think you're right and we are likely to get some good RS coverage around the opening. Out of interest, do you happen to know if there's any opposition to it in Australia. I came across one blog that described it as a colossal, flag-waving, Tony Abbott vanity-project but it was only a single blog. But there also seems to have been a parliamentary inquiry? And this [1] suggests a degree of controversy. It would be good to reflect any, significant, opposition. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, actually I hadn't heard anything about it, until I saw the draft. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Sir John Monash Centre is definitely notable: it will be a fair sized museum housing some of the Australian War Memorial's collections, and has cost a fortune to build. It's received a reasonable amount of coverage, some of which has been critical. The article looks good to go IMO. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks - I've pushed the article through and the originating editor's committed to expanding it further. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Would like to have your opinion

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I think a split makes sense, but I'm not really familiar enough with the topic to offer much more than that, I'm afraid. It looks like there is already a reaonable consensus that a split is necessary, so I won't pile on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nine years of editing

Hey, AustralianRupert. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133

Hello, Very sorry to trouble you again. But, I would like your opinion as a military project member, when you have the time, thank you. I did the article Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 133. I just had an editor delete important external links with no explination. Then they came back and destroyed the image format with no explanation for that either. Prior to my doing this article the battalion had three hotlinks for its History on it's facebook page. When I completed this article the battalion made Wikipedia it's sole history link. Three weeks ago Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11 left a special request on my talk page requesting that I do an article for them similar to the 133's. I have that submitted now. But, I have also done the NMCB 25 article and Seabee Is it a requirement of a Wikipedia article to be visually uninteresting? Can editors just change an article's images willy nilly with no regard to placement? 133 built the entrances to the Marine Corps cemetery on Iwo Jima. It seemed to me that the fitting placement of those images was at the end of the article. Look at what has been done. This editor's talk page states that they review new articles. They edited the NMCB 11 article but, it is still in my sandbox? In that article they removed the image of the only Seabee to be awarded the Medal of Honor along with his medal. Do editor's get reviewed for the editing they do to articles? What has happened here is not the same thing as checking the grammar, spelling or bare URLs. Thank you again for your time.Mcb133aco (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mcb133aco: G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. Unfortunately, I don't have much time tonight so I haven't had a long look at the articles you reference. However, I think a couple of things need to be considered here. Firstly, please remember that assuming good faith is a key policy here. Please consider that most editors (whether they get it right or not) are usually trying to do what they think is right. Second, please be mindful that other editors have a right to work on the encyclopedia, too. None of us WP:OWN the articles we work on, even those in draft space. This can be a very frustrating element of Wikipedia, but it can also be one of its strengths as it promotes collaboration and diverse opinions and approaches. It is indeed the way all of our featured articles are produced (they go through a formal review process where many editors offer opinions and advice, etc). Anyway, I think the best advice I can give you is if you disagree with a change someone has made, post a message on the article talk page, or on their talk page, asking them to clarify why they've done it. This can help you to understand, and potentially learn, or it can help you establish consensus about why their change may not be for the best (if that is the case). With specific reference to the image situation, it is important to maintain balance within an article. Of course, articles look better with images; however, we cannot always use them (due to licensing issues), and also there are issues of balance. For instance, it is important not to include too many images, because that can take the focus off the prose (which is the main aspect of the article), and to ensure that the way they are placed within an article in an appropriate way. This link might help: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Anyway, I'm afraid I have to turn in for tonight. Early start for duty tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. You wrote a great deal that I do not believe is applicable to what I came to you with, but I do want to thank you for your reply. I have some considerable schooling in photo and worked for a publisher at one time. I do have an understanding of article layout, structure and visual presentation. Twice now I have had the same image removed from an unpublished article, the only Seabee to be awarded a Medal of Honor. That is almost a news story. Additional questions I have for you are: Does Wikipedia require that all images be a thumb and preferably be placed on the right? Does Wikipedia presume that readers are visually illiterate and require written text under every image? Thank you again for your time and consideration.Mcb133aco (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

ACR Source Question

Hi. Would you be able to advise on whether lack of author info in sources is a problem for ACR? This question has come up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo. I'm not sure where we stand on this. Factotem (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

opinion

Hello. May I ask a question? On Landings at Cape Torokina you (or maybe Hawkeye) used oclc's rather than isbn's, even for relatively recent publications. I'm in a little information-gathering period these days. My question is, is there some reason why you prefer oclc's over isbn, or did you just kinda go with one over the other for no big reason. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I usually use ISBNs if they exist for a source, but I'm not really fussed either way as they both seem to do the job, IMO. Is there are particular entry you'd like changed? I can have a look if you want. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I wasn't hinting anything about changes or anything else. I was actually just gathering info. Tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbefehlshaber

Hey @AustralianRupert: first of, thanks for the help on Operation Safari. I am currently trying to work a bit on Draft:Wehrmachtbefehlshaber and reached a bit of a wall. If you have time and feel like it, I would appreciate some help/feedback/etc. Regards Skjoldbro (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: G'day, that one isn't really up my ally, unfortunately. My only real suggest would be to expand the lead to summarise the article a bit more. For instance, in the lead you could mention that the were ten positions, you could mention when they were first created, and how many individuals held the appointments, perhaps. You could potentially also clarify what the responsibilities of the position entailed. For instance, were they actively involved in commanding operations in the field, or really just a figurehead? In terms of sourcing, I think you will need to find some more diverse sources as currently it all seems to be from the Axis History website. Anyway, sorry I couldn't be of more help. Thanks for your efforts. Good luck and all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Questions

G'day i have two questions for you, first question can i use this icon (below this line) of Britsh or the American or even an other English dialect in some pages without asking someone or do i have to make some requests on their talk pages cause i want to put the icons in the pages who are at least GA-class.

{{British English}}

Second question can i have your opinion are this rebel groups part of a conflict

Breton Region
Breton Revolutionary Army
Breton Liberation Front
Corsican Region
National Liberation Front of Corsica
Armata Corsa
Provençal Region
National Liberation Front of Provence
Catalan Region
Catalan Red Liberation Army
Catalan Liberation Front
Terra Lliure
Catalan People's Army
Galician Region
Resistência Galega
Exército Guerrilheiro do Povo Galego Ceive
Liga Armada Galega
Loita Armada Revolucionaria
Sardinian Region
Sardinian Armed Movement
Fronte Nazionale de Liberazione de sa Sardigna
Movimentu Nazionalista Sardu
Canarian Rigion
Fuerzas Armadas Guanches

I know that most of the groups did killed not a lot of people i just want to know then i'd make a page like the Insurgency in Northeast India a major conflict with some low conflicts. I had an idea to make some pages called Insurgency in Spain, Insurgency in France and one in Italy called Insurgency in Italy then i can put some other groups like left-wing rebel groups and right-wing rebel groups. So i can make some low conflicts like the Galician conflict, Corsican conflict and more. I know it would be a lot of work but i think it's worth it or i'll make some drafts (if there is almost no information) for in the futere before they want to merge or delete it what do you think i think they want war and they need a page if they are really making a conflict there. Anyway cheers and have a gread day. CPA-5 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, with regards to your first question, it depends. If it is clear cut, then you probably don't need post on the talk page first; however, if it appears to be a bit ambiguous about what variation applies, or there has been some contention in the past, it is best to post on the talk page first. Regarding your second question, I wouldn't suggest creating an overarching article unless it is clear based on sources that such a concept exists, otherwise it would be original research to group them into an overarching conflict. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

G day thanks for the questions however about the second question are those situations really conflicts. I mean, have these situations the characteristics for consideration as a conflict. If it is so then can I make some separate conflicts and not overarching articles, even there are not a lot of people who died in situations or should I make some drafts then we can wait until there are more informations. CPA-5 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer. These aren't organisations or conflicts I have any knowledge of. It might help to post your query on the main MILHIST talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, i'll surly upload this issue on the MILHIST talk page, cause I think they're fighting on an urban guerrilla warfare way. I was even thinking to make some conflict articles for some left-wing rebel groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation, the Action directe, the First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Groups, the Red Army Faction and more. But also for some right-wing rebel groups like Youth Front, Triple A (Spain) and more, since the begin of the Cold War they are fight against the governments, but I am not sure or they are a conflict. Should I put also the left-wing and right-wing rebels issue in the MILHIST talk page? Anyway thanks again and have a great day, cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Military history A-Class medal with Swords

		The Military history A-Class medal with Swords
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Military history A-Class medal with Swords for your excellent work on developing Bougainville counterattack, New Britain campaign, and Landings at Cape Torokina to A-Class status. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations also from me. It was great working with you on the first two of these articles, and the third is a fine piece of work. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Cheers, Nick. I'd be keen to work with you again. Have been thinking for awhile that 6th Division (Australia) might be that opportunity. I'd need to get a few books through the library first, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe

G'day Rupert. Many thanks for your comments on this. Just what I was after. "are there any other sources that you could use beyond Stacey that talk about the incident in relation to whether it was a war crime?" One of the things which most fascinated me about this incident when I stumbled across it was the almost complete absence of censure. Stacey is the most critical (and he lied through his teeth in the official history and was economical with the truth in his autobiography) while most accounts even today tend to "they had it coming". Vokes seemed to positively glory in his role. So, sadly, I am struggling to expand this section. I could say a lot more, but would stray into original research and this is too delicate a topic for that. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, you can only write what is covered in RS. Your changes look good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonexistent portal

Can you remove the link to United States Department of the Army Seal.svg portal on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Kevin Musker (locked page)? It's one of two links to the bogus(?) portal which IMHO doesn't need to exist. I'm about to delete the other. Thanks in advance.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, there's another one on he same page. I looks like an editor tried to pipe a portal without realizing that "portal" takes multiple parameters. I wonder how many of those are out there?<sigh>--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, I am a bit wary about boldly adjusting this page at this stage, sorry, as it has been fully protected specifically to ensure that "integrity of the archived hoaxes is preserved" as per the note here Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Is there a discussion somewhere that you can link me to, to work out the background to your request? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand. There's no discussion anywhere that I know of. I first saw the red link on Steven Dale Green and checked to see how often the page (portal) was linked. There were only two and I removed the one on Green. I figured this was just simple maintenance.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your collaborative and congenial nature. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:7&6=thirteen submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

AustralianRupert has been at the forefront of editing military history and Australian articles. He has been in service for almost 80,000 edits (99+% with edit summaries) and over 8 years. He is courteous and helpful. Many years ago he went out of his way to teach me about electronic foot noting. Give a man a fish... etc. When help was requested he was on it. The very soul of a collaborative and cooperative member of the project. An appreciated and valued mentor. A prolific and precise editor who has been making things better behind the scenes. But don't take my word for it. See here.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)