This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 05:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook 12 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed your edit to 817th Air Division indicating the division was disestablished in 1971. In the USAF and its predecessors, units are disestablished by being "demobilized" (obsolete), "disbanded", or "discontinued" (also obsolete, but in addition this term may not apply during the 1960s). With one exception, USAF considers units that are "inactivated" to still exist. The exception is for 4-digit (MAJCON) units that were "inactivated" after the "discontinued" term was well, discontinued in 1969. The distinction may be artificial, but it's the one followed by the responsible agency. Thanks for the other corrections, though. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking the time to explain that, I appreciate the note. Anotherclown (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day Ac, I'm just checking on progress on a couple of ACRs. Looks like you were happy with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Howdy I've cmt'd there. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in reviewing hemmema as a follow-up to your review of udema?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Gday Peter. Sure, will try to get to it today. Anotherclown (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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 reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

	The GAN Reviewer's Rice Ball Delight
	For your efficient reviewing, and for noting the unintentional humor of oden-linking, I offer you this gift of delicious onigiri. Peter Isotalo 11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tanks in the Australian Army you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really chuffed for you. Congratulations again! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Tanks in the Australian Army you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tanks in the Australian Army for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Tanks in the Australian Army you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tanks in the Australian Army for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me decide if the article should be listed in "Modern history (1800 to present)" or "Weapons, military equipment and programs" section of WP:GA/W. I'm anything but sure, so I thought to ask for some advice. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Howdy. Yes that is a tricky one - I think maybe "Weapons, military equipment and programs". Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I suppose it can always be moved if there's a more suitable section later on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Tanks in the Australian Army at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't submit it, but I think you're the one to look at this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ack - thanks for letting me know. Working on this now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help improve the sourcing of articles on Vietnamese battles against Australian troops in Vietnam. The villages, hills and rivers you are mentioning are often unrecognizable and need to be integrated into the encyclopedia as a whole. Maybe geo-coordinates can enable them to be accurately defined using Google Earth? Likewise the description of Vietnamese units is often unclear and fails to mention the Vietnamese commanders. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. All those place names and units are presented as they appear in the western / English language sources available and are used fairly extensively in my experience (so I'm not really sure how they can be better identified). You are quite right in saying that many of these articles lack detail on Viet Cong or North Vietnamese commanders etc; however, that is usually because it is not available (to my knowledge) in the sources not because it has been consciously left out. Of course if you know of reliable sources that have not been consulted then pls feel free to add them. Anotherclown (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the read through on the Harold J. Greene article, I appreciate the double check. While I'm glad that the material is expanded and that there are no major spelling or grammar issues I think I speak for everyone when I say that I'd rather be editing the article to reflect his accomplishments in the service rather than his death in an ambush. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Having some personal experience here, including losing a colleague in similar circumstances, I can only agree. Lest We Forget. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome to military history. Alrich44 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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 reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

Thank you for including me in this conversation. However, the issue is bigger than a simple fact check:

• How do we want to frame the topic? Using either Chinese, Commonwealth, US or South Korean narrative will drastically change the structure and the title of the article. General idea is that some POV prefer the current article split into two separate battles (April vs. May battle) while other POV will want to use the current one article structure.
• How much time do we really want to sink into this topic? We are talking about a the biggest battle in the entire Korean War, on the scale of full might of Communist forces vs the full might of UN forces, totaling over two million men clashing over the period of two months across the entire length of 38th Parallel. There will be a lot of different propaganda, POVs, numbers and interpretations that is just waiting to get crammed into what we currently have. This is not something that can be solved by simple fact checking.

Currently given the resource constraints I have, I can prevent WP:REDFLAG from being showing up into the article. But anything more than that will require serious investment which is something I just don't have time to commit right now. Jim101 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did a second reading over the article, and all I can say is that that article content is technically accurate from certain point of view/context, which means it is also exempt from the WP:REDFLAG rule too. If it were up to me, I'll purge everything from the infobox since all information in it is only accurate from certain point of view without providing context. But nuking someone else's work is because my personal standard is hardly being productive here. Jim101 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking over this Jim. I guess I didn't realise the possible issues but was hoping you might be able to check it for any REDFLAGs as you said, so happy with that. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a huge brain dump in the article talk page on what I believe the idea state of the article and how the current article stacked up against it. Given the hugeness of the topic and the POVs we need to take into account, I believe I need all involved editors in agreement before being bold here. Jim101 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

On 20 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tanks in the Australian Army, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 6th Division Cavalry Regiment's use of tanks during the capture of Tobruk in 1941 was the first time that Australian forces operated tanks (pictured) in action? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tanks in the Australian Army. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you please mind 'certifying' (seems that's the terminology) your previous attempts to reason with Middayexpress, at the above link? There's a 48-hour timelimit before the page is deleted, starting a few minutes ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the creation of thematic campaign boxes acceptable?For example a Peasant Wars campaign box.Catlemur (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Gday - these topics are covered here: WP:CAMPAIGN and Template:Campaignbox and its talkpage. My feeling is that if the battles are considered part of a particular campaign in reliable sources then their inclusion in a campaign box would be justified. That said if there are no RS for this association then it probably can't be sustained and would be WP:OR. Could you perhaps give me an example of the battles you were thinking of including? Anotherclown (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To be precise.I would like to create a military navigation box which will include these. Catlemur (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure a campaignbox / nav box really would be suitable for that. My reasons are mainly those above. Ultimately there is nothing in common b/n many of those articles other than the fact that they appear on an arbitrary list (for instance many occurred in different centuries on different sides of the world). If they were battles of a distinct / defined campaign or war, and are considered as such by reliable sources, that would be a different matter. That said this is only my opinion though - and I didn't actually see any policy which would prevent it. Perhaps though you might consider opening your question to a wider forum and posting this to the MILHIST talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history? You may get a more informed answer than the one I have given. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see.Thanks.Catlemur (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4th Brigade (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 9th Brigade. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)  Done Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

Hi mate, tks for that addition -- I'm still in the middle of a significant expansion of the article, with two-thirds of Korea to go plus more on the Mirage and Hornet eras, just plugging away when I have time each day. It's the only article I'm focussing on expanding at the moment and I wish I had time to bring a few more RAAF unit articles up to scratch but you know how it is... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Wasn't sure if you were finished Korea so thought I'd put that part in. I've no plans to add any more so pls feel free to crack on / change anything I added. I've been at a bit of a loose end for the last few weeks being on leave following the birth of my son, but at the same time only have short periods where I can do something before I need to tend to the little bloke so I have been making lots of small additions / tweaks here and there rather than doing anything of substance. Back to work shortly though so won't have much time at all then. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we needed that info in there, although I think most other sources put fatalities at 40+ -- twice as many, incidentally, as the sqn sustained in three years during WWII. On a happier note, did I congratulate you on AC, Jr? If not congrats! Yeah, I had a relaxing month between contacts and got quite a lot done, now editing is like hit-and-run raids rather than a sustained siege, but we'll get there in the end... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've closed the RfC/U you co-certified. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, mate, not sure if you are aware of this category: Category:Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles needing attention. If you are looking to focus your efforts for the backlog drive, it might come in handy. I've been trying to work through the ANZSP grammar category. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, will have a look. Anotherclown (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - September 2014 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now for the one question that we guarantee you have: how on earth will the rounds work??? Yes, we never actually had a solid platform regarding how the rounds would work because we had no idea how many people would sign-up. Even though the competition is about to begin, because sign-ups are still open, it is impossible to say exactly how each round will work. As of now, we can confirm that Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on, so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools of even numbers (for example, every pool will have 6 participants). The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on October 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on October 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. On October 16 or 17, 2014, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, 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) 00:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Special Air Service Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Anotherclown (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal Australian Regiment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook a very impressive 21 reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high-quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Royal Australian Regiment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Royal Australian Regiment for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Royal Australian Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Australian Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've created the page on Operation Okra. Feel free to contribute to the article. -Keepdry (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment (Australia)

added a link pointing to War in Afghanistan

5th Aviation Regiment (Australia)

added a link pointing to Darwin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 As we move into the middle of Round 1, we wanted to report some of the lessons we've learned thus far, as well as announce a major rule change going into Round 2, which begins November 1. Remember, sign-ups for this year's Cup ends on September 15. Thus far, we're very happy with the results of the competition. One of our major goals, reducing the long backlog at GAN, is well on the way to being accomplished, mostly due to the enthusiastic efforts of Jonas Vinther, who has earned over 250 points. Over 80 reviews have been made thus far. Thank you all for your efforts and for your part in making the GA Cup a success. However, this is the inaugural year of the GA Cup, so there have been some unforeseen circumstances that have come up. One has been a glaring inadequacy with the rules, which the judges feel makes the competition unfair. As a result, there will be a major change in the rules, starting at the beginning of Round 2: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. What this means is that you must provide some feedback to the article's nominator, and must wait for him or her to respond before passing the article. If the nominator has not responded in the standard 7 days, you can fail the article. We're instituting this rule change to prevent the possibility of competitors passing articles for the sake of passing articles (or failing them) and to gain more points. We believe that the change will make it more fair to all competitors in the GA Cup. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we increased the "guarantee" for Round 2 to 25 participants. The exact number will be decided in the near future. We thank your for your participation, and for your flexibility and understanding as we learn what works and what doesn't work in this competition. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, 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) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

It was brought to the attention of the judges that there was an error in the newsletter sent out earlier today.

Sign-ups for the GA Cup will close on October 15, 2014, not September 15, 2014 (as mentioned in the newsletter).

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 Hello GA Cup competitors! The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal. To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system. Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, 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) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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 Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic 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 reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

		WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's September–October 2014 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collingwood26 Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I guess I started to form a similar suspicion a couple of weeks ago so should really have done it myself. Anotherclown (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, re the reference to regular Army units in Australia's very early years: I think the distinction between the New South Wales Marines and the regular British Army is worth making given that the Marine Corps felt it very keenly, as did their prickly NSW commander Robert Ross. But thank you for this amendment - it seems like a good compromise between the original and my subsequent version. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gday. Thanks for the note. Yes the original wording of the article was admittedly inexact, glossing over the distinction b/n the Marines and British Army perhaps more by omission than anything else. Good to see someone picked it up. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add ((subst:Halloween apples)) to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively. Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters). In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. 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) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Paratrooper page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, mate, have you got anything in your Vietnam War library about Kevin Wheatley? The article is in desperate need of some attention. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have anything of substance, although I might take a trip to the library some time during my holidays. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Howdy - certainly do. I have the condensed version of They Dared Mightily, also have The Team and The Men Who Persevered + there is the ADB entry online I think. Should be fairly easily to bash something out so might have a look in a bit. That said I may have reached the limit of my interest in wiki for the day, will have to see. Anotherclown (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I have endeavored to update your Tactical Assault Group page with current information. I note that a number of the current references are actually to association pages, therefore you are referencing unsubstantiated information itself. The ABC article also outlined the current 2nd Commando Regiment activities in the G20, with prior acknowledgement in the main body of the TAG page that this is where TAG-East comes from. Although not named specifically, this is a direct reference. I do not know when the last time that TAG-West or TAG-East have been directly referenced, as I have it on good information that these are internal names, as opposed to communicated publicly. Accuracychaser (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see you are trying to help but again the references you provided do not support the information you are adding, for instance you wrote:

1. - "TAG East provides the primary response to terrorism within Australia and its territorial waters" and cited http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/News-and-media/News-and-media-2012/News-and-media-August-2012/Commandos-put-to-the-test. This does not appear anywhere in this article.
2. - "Each year as part of the National Counter-Terrorist Committee Skills Enhancement continuum" and cited http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Mediaandpublications/Publications/Documents/national-counter-terrorism-plan-2012.pdf. I reviewed the document and there is not a single mention of the "National Counter-Terrorist Committee Skills Enhancement continuum" in it.
3. - Also you cited "https://ausmilitary.com/TAG.htm" for a couple of things; however, this website appears to require a password so I can't login in so there is no where of verifying it. Regardless, I assume it is some sort of blog (so is unlikely to meet the requirements of WP:RS at any rate).

If you are going to add information to an article pls ensure you provide references which actually support what you have written. It is obvious that you are trying to correct the articles on the basis of personal information, but the requirement here is for verifiability (pls see WP:VERIFY). I realise the articles in their current state are incorrect and in no way think they are complete, but the changes you are making are not improvements either.

Re your comment: "I note that a number of the current references are actually to association pages, therefore you are referencing unsubstantiated information itself". I didn't add any of that information, my only concern is about what you are adding. Comply with the policies I have outlined and I will attempt to help you update the articles, but continue to add incorrect references and you may well be sanctioned for disruptive editing. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, mate, wondering if you can troll your sources for something on this: No. 100 Squadron RAAF. I've added what I can, but don't have much in the way of books that cover it. Hoping you can do what you did to No. 43 Squadron RAAF for me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I got to know this unit reasonably well when I was writing the John Balmer article so I might be able to take this one on if you (both) like... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday Ian, by all means pls feel free. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: G'day, that would be most appreciated. I've identified this squadron as an easy "kill" for B-class that probably just need a couple more refs and some expansion: No. 82 Squadron RAAF is also one of those. Unfortunately, I don't have anything other than web sources for these squadrons, though, so if you guys have something, that would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I guess there's no RAAF sqn I don't have watchlisted... ;-) I'd love to see them all B/GA but I tend to work deeply on a few rather than broadly so if between you guys they get expanded a bit and then I can chip in to add further detail from sources I'm familiar with it would be a great little collaboration project. Pls note I have some laptop issues right now but I will get on both these (and 450Sqn, Rupert!) as soon as I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, doesn't look like you need any help with 100Sqn after all, Rupert... ;-) Would you still like me to help out on 82SQN now you've piqued my interest...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, yes that would be great. I'm still looking for a ref for 100 Sqn operating Catalinas, though, so if you've got anything on that, please let me know. Otherwise, I will probably have to remove it from the article. AC, if you could add refs to Eather and the RAAF Hist Section to 100 Sqn when you get a chance, I'd be most obliged. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in Units of the RAAF re. Cats in 100Sqn -- I've removed for now and if someone spots a mention in say Eather then it could go back in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday, I've added a little now. Might come back and do a bit more tomorrow although I think it is mostly complete now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a comprehensive article, guys -- with pretty well all the sources you could want -- considering it was a relatively short-lived outfit. I think'd be worth a shot at GA, not just B. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Cheers, Ian, thinking about it. I might wait to see how we get on with 450 Sqn, though. If I do nom, I will co-nom with both of you as you both deserve credit as well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I think I'm about done with 450 as far as a potential GAN goes, would just like to run a couple more images past you (hopefully tonight or tomorrow) and then we could nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, AC, I thought I'd claimed 82SQN to work on next and had a new edit I'd worked on this morning just about to save when you got in . Are you done for a minute so I can try to merge? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I must have forgot. I'm all done pls feel free. Anotherclown (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, gents, probably my fault as I think I asked you both for help and forgot who was doing what. Anyway, thanks both of you. Both 82 and 100 have benefitted greatly from your input. Anyway, I'm done with RAAF squadrons for now as I've exhausted my sources. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries guys. BTW Rupert, I saw in an edit summary for the monthly contest that you didn't want to claim 43 and 100 Sqns as they were collaborative. Pls don't worry about me in that equation, what I did in those two was mainly a bit of prose/formatting -- you and AC did most of the content so I don't see why you (Rupert) shouldn't take points in the contest (if AC was entering I'd suggest the same to him). 82Sqn I think was more a three-way, so I'd like to take points in the contest for that but only if you (Rupert again unless AC wants to enter!) do too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian, I've added them to the contest now. I added 82 Sqn to your list also. Please adjust if you see fit. AC, if you'd like to enter, the more the merrier - happy to share credit where it is due! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 100 Squadron RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)  Done

You flagged the talk page on my article Heliopolis War Cemetery. If you haven't already done so, you might like to pick up my article Sfax War Cemetery too. I've added my name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active, with an indication of my areas of interest. Many British officers who were awarded the VC already have good WP articles; but colonials and other ranks, less so. (Yes, I know that several of my edits (check my history) have not been exhaustive - but locating, copying in, and linking the London Gazette citation is an essential start.)

(I'm pleased to see from here that I'm not the only one who mistakenly links to a dab page, and has to curse, go back, and correct ...) Narky Blert (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the project! Thanks for your note, I have now tagged Sfax War Cemetery for MILHIST as you suggested. Good to see these articles getting some attention. Anotherclown (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Are these things on which you can help me, a noob? (1) I recently came across George Ingouville. Adding his VC ribbon was easy enough, but the CGM ribbon defeated me. Neither ribbon on that page is appropriate - one has a bar, one is for another branch of service. (I've never yet tried to locate and upload an image to WP.) (2) List of George Cross recipients is a red-linked mess. Would I be right in adding e.g. ((Template:WikiProject Military history)) or ((template:milhist)) to the talk pages of any stub articles I might create? Narky Blert (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday. Yes pls feel free to add the template to the talk page of the articles you create (as long as they are military related of course). Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You've probably already heard of Phillip Hughes being hospitalised "in critical condition" after being hit, apparently in the in the head, by a bouncer. [1] Just mentioning it as you are #2 editor there. I've quickly updated his page. diff. Regards, --220 of ^Borg 05:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday 220. Thanks for the note. I think most of my edits to that article have probably just been reverts of vandalism as I haven't contributed very much text. Yes, I just heard about this very unfortunate event. Hoping for the best for him and his family. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gday Anotherclown. If you can, keep an eye on this page, there's already been 2 IP dimwits falsely saying he had died! --220 of ^Borg 10:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Anotherclown (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday. Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November. In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles. For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges. Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year. Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. 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) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Michael Dunphy, I really appreciate it - although not too sure if it's going to survive very long without being deleted! I appreciate seasoned military history editors lending a hand! Smirkybec (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I had look for a few more sources in Google books but couldn't find anything I'm afraid. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, it is nice to see a fellow soldier. I shall endeavour to find said references, the truth is the contents of this page are plum wrong.

2 Cav is no longer part of 1 Bde, it is in Townsville with 3 Bde.

5 & 7 RAR are no longer mechanised, they have no carriers and they no longer have enough people to crew carriers if they were given them.

C & D Sqns are as we speak on the 1 Armd Regt ORBAT and have been all year.

I appreciate the Tanks are yet to be disaggregated and so should not necessarily be included in this article.

Kind Regards, Cavalryman V31, 1530 h, 7 Dec 14. — Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Howdy Cavalryman V31. Thanks for the note. As you rightly point out the info re the 1 Bde structure (i.e. 2 CAV and 5 and 7 RAR) was out of date so I've deleted some of this and made a few changes to try and address this issue. I also added a bit on the generic Beersheba structure of each of the Combat Brigades. If you could pls have a look and let me know what you think that would be appreciated. Also if you could dig a up ref for the current structure of 1 Armoured that would be great as we could update that part too. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Hi, i would just like to inform you that the slew of IPs from Hanoi editing a number of Vietnam War articles, are sockpuppet IP edits from the banned user Mig29vn. I'm currently busy and unable to deal with [another!] sockpuppet investigation. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) Please check out the links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.99.7.141 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Attleboro&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Starlite&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.72.47.230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/113.190.46.114 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.72.46.121 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1.55.244.180

Hello. I have posted something here now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN. Did I fill this in correctly? Anotherclown (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, you did great. Thank you Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk)

Anotherclown thanks for investigating and helping block this user. Regards Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Battle_of_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_Tr%E1%BB%8B#PAVN_loss27.72.40.71 (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, If you want save on a bit of bureaucracy, I'd be happy to block any further IPs from this person if you post them on my talk page. I'm not sure how to do range blocks though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2014 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Australian Imperial Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Expeditionary Force. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)  Done Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bali bombings. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)  Done

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4 Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all! 114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal! For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here. We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup. Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. 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) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First Australian Imperial Force you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)