User talk:RoslynSKP/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Guinea

As I recently uploaded information to Wikipedia for the first time; on the History of New Guinea page, I would be grateful for any feedback. --RoslynSKP (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Rcbutcher

Thank you very much Rcbutcher for correcting all my mistakes. I really appreciate your help.--RoslynSKP (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to help if I can ! Please contact me if you need more information or advice about contributing to Wikipedia & WWI subjects. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Affair of Katia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Affair of Katia, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from each of the sources which have been cited. (ref 2 is online), and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Affair of Katia saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

In addition, the article lacked an introduction which gave any context. (which war was this, which country even were not obvious until a good deal of the article had been read.) dramatic (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am really sorry about the problems to do with this new page - maybe it should have been a sub page which might fix some of the context problems. Yes, I would like an opportunity to modify the article and have established the temporary page as you suggested. Is the copyright problem to do with the Official History by Downes which is available on the Australian War Memorial web site? If so I would appreciate your advice as to how this can be fixed, as I believe the other references to have been quoted as 'fair dealing'. I look forward to resolving all the problems and appreciate your help and support.--RoslynSKP (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
All you need to do is rewrite it in you own words, then it will not have a copyright problem. Normally you are allowed to directly quote only very brief sections to indicate that "this was the exact opinion of that author". The actual facts about what happened when cannot be copyrighted so we can use all the facts provided by other authors, so loing as we write our own text and accurately reference where the facts came from. Does this help ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WW1 Egyptian Labour & Camel Transport Corps. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  18:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Egyptian Camel Transport Corps, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

  • The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
  • Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
  • If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! —fetch·comms 18:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am really glad to get these articles up and appreciate all the support I have received. Thank you--RoslynSKP (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War I

Hi RoslynSKP, thank you for your addition to the Military history of Australia during World War I article. Could you please add references to the information that you have added? The standard for B class and above within the Military history project is at least one citation at the end of each paragraph, although more than that is best if multiple sources are used. As this article is a GA, it will need to maintain this standard. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have pretty much said the same thing at the article's talk page. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Will do.--RoslynSKP (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Egyptian Camel Transport Corps

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Egyptian Labour Corps

Courcelles 12:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee Egyptian Labour Corps got 3,048 hits. That's great!! :):):) Thank you so much.--RoslynSKP (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes

You're welcome. Glad you approve! Trafford09 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Hi RoslynSKP, thanks for your continued work on the Military history of Australia during World War I article. Please note, however, that your recent edit has introduced what is called "overlink". What this relates to is multiple wikilinks (or internal links) to the same subject. For GA and above, it is generally required that a topic is only linked once in the lead, once in the infobox and once (on first mention) in the body of the prose. An example of overlink in the Military history of Australia during World War I article are the links to Harry Chauvel in this diff: [1]. The relevant policy link is: Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Repeated links. Nevertheless, this is only a minor thing. Keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit carried away!--Rskp (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No dramas. Its good to see enthusiasm. Keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Magdhaba

Hi, Roslyn. I notice that you've added a request to have the Battle of Magdhaba article peer reviewed. In order to start this process, there are a couple more steps involved. You've added the correct code to the Milhist banner on the article's talk page, but you have not created the page on which the review will take place. In order to do this, you need to view the article talk page and click the "show' button on the Milhist banner, which will reveal a red link entitled "A request has been made". By clicking on this redlink you will be able to create the page for the review to take place on. Record the reasons why you are requesting a peer review and then save. After this, the review is live and can be transcluded on to the main Milhist peer review page (I will do this for you if you want, once you've set up the page). Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The talk page has been created, just now, so 'over to you Scotty' :) --Rskp (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've transcluded it on to the main Milhist peer review page and announced the review on the main project and the ANZSP talk pages. Hopefully a few editors will take the time to review and provide you with some more feedback and suggestions. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. All the best. --Rskp (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:AnzacMDwdAWM4-1-60-13A54.37.tiff

Thanks for uploading File:AnzacMDwdAWM4-1-60-13A54.37.tiff. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are three maps I have recently uploaded from the Anzac Mounted Division War Diary available at the Australian War Memorial Web Site. I don't know if there is a direct link to the maps as its necessary to go through a series of steps to access the war diary.

Firstly http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/ gives access to the First World War Diaries where AWM4, Class 1 - Formation Headquarters link is http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/class.asp?levelID=69 then by clicking on AWM4, Sub-class 1/60 - General Staff, Headquarters Anzac Mounted Division http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338 gives the page where the monthly war diaries can be selected to download. I'm not sure if one of these URLs might be what you are looking for - but I don't think the war diaries can be read on line.

There may be a way to do a direct link to the maps but I don't know how, or who would have this information. The file name of the maps incorporates the address of the particular War Diary and A54 denotes Appendix 54 indicates the maps are in this appendix and each map is identified by its unique stamp 36, 37 and 38.

I'm afraid I just presumed that Australian war diaries are government documents and that they are in the public domain at the Australian War Memorial web site and so incorporating these maps into this Wikipedia article was fair use.

Please let me know if you have any further concerns about these maps as they contain information which is useful to the article, and would be good to be included. :) --Rskp (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman Numerals for Ottoman Armies in Jerusalem Battle 1917 article

Hi, I noticed you changed these to Arabic - is this more correct? :) --Rskp (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Roslyn, Elinize sağlık (health to your hand). As far as I know, about the Ottoman and Turkish units, Roman numerals were used for corps, and Arabic were used for divisions, (sometimes for field armies). Off course, we can also see VII Army but most of researchers prefer Seventh Army or 7th Army to VII Army. But if you want to use VII Army, you can use. Because we cannot say that VII Army is wrong usage. However, we would refer to some corps in that article, Roman numerals may cause confusion. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Elinize sağlık (health to your hand) to you, if it is permitted. Oh right - they are above corps level - I get it. Thank you for your explanation. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Common Interest

Dear RoslynSKP. I have come upon your wonderful contributions lately, and it seems that we share a common interest - as I have been writting in the hebrew wikipedia about palestine during world war I. I would very much like to cooperate with you, share sources, and so on. My email is yonitoker at gmail. Yours, Yoni Toker. טוקיוני (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to know that you are interested in these campaigns and the references which I try to incorporate but I'm sorry to be limited to english language sources. :)--Rskp (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask what are is your main source of information? I have at home Wavell's book, but your articles have much more information than can be found there. As for english language limitaion - that is no longer a problem in the google translate era!
I also have a small technical remark, that in some places the Ottoman army is referred to as the 'enemy', however wikipedia articles should be neutral... טוקיוני (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no single main source that I know of - but Wavell is very good and he is quoted by a lot of other historians; the British official history by Falls and the New Zealand one by Powles are both also very good. Yes, I must try to correct those 'enemy' references. Thank you. :) --Rskp (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mughar Ridge

Hi again. I've taken a bit of a look over the Mughar Ridge article myself and made a few tweaks which you might like to review and adjust if necessary. I really only focused on the lead, but if you look at the edit summary you will get an idea of some of the Manual of Style tweaks that will need to be done to get the article through a GAN or ACR. In terms of prose, I found one section a little cumbersome and due to my limited copy editing skills I wasn't able to rectify the issue. The section is the Ayun Kara section in the Aftermath. The sentences I'm having trouble with are: "But red knoll located close to the junction with the short leg and practically in front of the dividing line between the two regiments poured fire directly on them all. Delayed by the red knoll position the New Zealanders' attack was further threatened by the Auckland Regiment's discovery shortly after 1400, during their pushing small groups up along the sand dunes, that Ottoman soldiers were gathering in a basin just over and behind the short leg of the "L" and completely out of sight of the two regiments." It appears that there might be a couple of missing words, and or they might be trying to say a bit too much. If you wouldn't mind reading through that part again and seeing if you can rework a little, it might fix the issues. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about those sentences. I have had a go at clarifying the description of the situation by using the map. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that the Ottoman rearguard's left flank was 'surrounding' the village of Sommeil. What do you think of 'in the area about the village ...'? :)
Thanks for your input - I've had a look and tweeked a few little things - your interest and contributions greatly appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, to me the word "about" seems a little old fashioned and I don't think readers today will recognise what you mean by it. I'd be more in favour of saying "near" or "around", but I think you voiced concerns about using those words as substitutes, didn't you? Ultimately we all have different writing styles, so at the end of the day what sounds good to one of us might not sound good to someone else. With battle articles in general, because there is so much detail to cover, there is a tendency for editors (myself included) to either write really long sentences that try to do to much and then confuse readers, or to write too many short sentences that make the prose too choppy and sound somewhat like machine gun fire (but I guess, as the Dargens would say, so long as its a 2 to 3 round burst, crack on!). ;-) Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! :) Yes 'about' is old fashioned - 'around' will have to do - and 2 to 3 is just spot on! All the best --Rskp (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian Mounted Division engagement

Hi, whilst Copy editing this article, I came across the following paragraph, in this sub-section:

It was now dark, and at 1800 the attack ended with the weary Ottoman attackers digging themselves in on the line which had been gained through Balin and Barqusya. The line taken up for the night by the Australian Mounted Division ran from ‘Iraq el Menshiye to Summeil, 3rd Light Horse Brigade thence westward to north of Ipseir, 5th Mounted Brigade and on to the right of the 75th Infantry Division at Suafir esh Sharqiye and the 4th Light Horse Brigade. The mounted division's casualties were about 50 mostly suffered by the 5th Mounted Brigade. In the face of large Ottoman attacking forces, the situation had been controlled by the coolness and steadiness of the troops, especially the machine gun squadrons of the 5th Mounted Yeomanry and the 4th Light Horse Brigades.

Unfortunately most of this section does not make any sense to me. I have been unable to re-render it, perhaps you can help? Pol430 talk to me 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Its a doozie isn't it! I've reworked it. Regards --Rskp (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hello again, I have completed a basic copy edit of this article, concentrating mostly on spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. I recommend the following before sending this to GA or FAC:

  • Try to avoid contiguous inline citations, per WP:INTEGRITY
  • Some areas of this article read like a story, for example: "To the right, in the distance, the Judaean Hills stood out clearly in the morning light, the spurs and valleys were visible even to the invading troops on the left flank."
  • The style of writing in this article makes frequent use of long and unwieldy sentences, I know you were reluctant for me to tighten the prose too much as you felt the meaning was being lost. I suggest having look yourself and trying to condense some of those long sentences.
  • Try and establish consistency with place names, for example: Katrah and Qatra - are these the same places?
  • There is also a lot of this in Wikilinks - Al-Maghar|El Mughar, Bashshit|Beshshit et al. Is there any particular reason for rendering the place names differently? Pol430 talk to me 13:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your suggestions, I will follow them up. And thank you most of all for your work. After getting past those first time nerves, I have found the process extremely valuable. Thanks again. :) --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point about the Wikilinks and place names but I'm not sure how to cope with this problem as these variant spellings appear in the literature. Yes Katrah and Qatra are the same place. Regarding the contiguous inline citations - I've had a look at the link you suggest but am still not sure I understand what is required.--Rskp (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With regard to the place names, if an article deals only with a place in a historical context (as this article does), and that place was known by the commonly accepted english name of Qatra, but the modern day Wikipedia article is named Katrah; then the Wikilink should be renamed Qatra. Basically, in this article, it depends on what the commonly accepted english name was at the time. See WP:PLACE for more info. One style should be used consistently throughout the article, there should not be different spellings of the same place, simply because different sources chose to spell them differently. Hope that makes sense?
With regard to the inline citations, You should place the citations at the end of the sentence that the citation supports. Rather than place all the citations together at the end of the paragraph. If this is not possible, for example, if all the citations talk about the subject of the paragraph in a very general way, then you should bundle your citations into one inline reference that links to multiple notes at bottom of the page. See WP:CITEBUNDLE for more information. Be careful not to overdo citations, more advice on this can be found at WP:CITEKILL. I realise that this must seem like a daunting task, but these are the required formats per WP:MOS (and associated policies) that the article will need to conform to, in order to do well at GA and FA. Pol430 talk to me 13:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much - re the names; I'll give all variants and then use one throughout (Falls the British historian in 1930 uses Q to spell place names almost everyone else before and after use K). Re the citations - I adopted the end of para groupings because I think the Military history WikiProject suggested it, but I'd like to get the thing right now before I do any further editing, so its worth it. Your help is much appreciated. :) --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Epic Barnstar
Awarded to RoslynSKP, for all your hard work around the topic of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War during 2010. Keep up the hard work! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It really was a wonderful year; finding that Wikipedia would be interested in this mountain of research. And with the help of many interested contributors, as everything improves there is a great sense of achievement and being part of something really worthwhile. I am particularly grateful to you for all your help, support, encouragement and etc and really appreciate the recognition. All the best for the New Year. Regards.--Rskp (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries at all, its been good to work with you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A-class reviews

Hi, RoslynSKP. I saw you inadvertently added your A-class nomination in the wrong place. You want to click the edit tab at the top of the instructions (here), instead of the first edit button after them (as that takes you to the first transcluded review. I fixed it for you, but I wanted to let you know for next time. Parsecboy (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. Thanks a lot for fixing it. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please don't take my comments in the wrong way. It is obvious that there is deep sourcing of the statements; but, it is appropriate that these issues be raised at an A-class review. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Western Frontier Force

Hi Roslyn, I've just created this page and wondered if you'd take a look, as you've an interest in this area? Please see my notes I've put on its talk page. Perhaps you have some later orders of battle with dates in your sources? Thanks, Yorkist (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi York, the Egyptian Expeditionary Force article includes all the info I've got. --Rskp (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll keep working on it. Yorkist (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Scots

Apologies - I'd missed the fact the regiment wasn't linked anywhere in the text! It's linked now.

I removed the lengthy brigade names ("156th Royal Scots and Scottish Rifles Brigade") because they're fairly unconventional - brigades did occasionally have "titles" like this, but they were very rarely used in practice, and it feels a lot clearer to just use the number except when you're talking about the specific battalions. Shimgray | talk | 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point but you sacrifice a great deal of information in the process. In this case I will include the whole title once only and thereafter refer to them as 156th Brigade. --Rskp (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Just fixed it up - but notice there are a whole lot of references to 'Royal Scots'. Using both 156th Brigade and Royal Scots is inconsistent and confusing. --Rskp (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
(This comment got lost in an edit conflict earlier, it seems... sorry! Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC))
As it is, I think, there's two problems with this approach:
a) I'm not sure the brigade ever was called this, at least not formally or for any significant period. It was formed as the Scottish Rifles Brigade, composed of four battalions of Cameronians (also known as the Scottish Rifles) - TF formations had nice names rather than plain numbers, reflecting the local origins. It later turned into the 156th (Scottish Rifles) Brigade when the Territorial units were sorted out, keeping the old name as a subtitle. It picked up two Royal Scots battalions in 1915, but did it also change its name? I'd be interested to know which if any sources use this terminology - a quick poke around finds plenty of occurrences of "156th Brigade", "156th Infantry Brigade" & "156th (Scottish Rifles) Brigade", but few if any with Royal Scots in the title. It's certainly unusual - I don't think I've ever seen reference to one named with multiple regiments this way!
b) The only information sacrificed by the change is the implication that there were Cameronian battalions. The composition of the brigade is certainly worth mentioning, but it's probably simplest just to name the battalions explicitly - something like "the 156th Brigade, with the 1/4th and 1/7th Royal Scots and 1/5th and 1/6th Cameronians...". It's clear to the reader that way, and (to my mind, at least) less confusing. Shimgray | talk | 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You obviously know a great deal about the history of this brigade but I know a bit about this battle. I am assuming that you are not suggesting I made the name up so why not respect my sources? --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying you invented it! I apologise entirely if I gave that impression. It's just that it leapt out at me as a very unusual name; it's not one I've seen anything like in any other contemporary material, and I'm wondering if one of the sources has got an idiosyncratic approach to this sort of thing...
WRT your comment about "inconsistent and confusing", which I missed earlier, the problem here is that "156th Brigade" and "Royal Scots" aren't quite synonymous even if we use the long "156th Royal, etc" title - "the Royal Scots did X" strongly implies just a specific part of the brigade - but some of the text in the Brown Hill section used them as though they were, which made it all a bit confusing. I note you've changed one instance to "the Scots battalion", which seems a pretty good approach - it's clear it refers to one of them, but it doesn't specify either. I've adjusted the two other uses of "Royal Scots" accordingly - looking at your remarks, I think I'm right in assuming we're not currently clear on which battalions were involved?
Having said all this, I will now do penance by going off to try to find out for you which battalion it was, to tidy up this footnote! Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The reference to 'the Scots battalion' could not be found by my finder - all I did was reinstate the full name where the Brigade is first mentioned and moved the link which you put in further down the article up to this first mention. Oh and I edited out one mention of 'Royal Scots.' None of the footnotes refer to this issue. Could you just fix the brigade name? None of the battalions from any of the infantry brigades mentioned in the whole article are identified, so I'd prefer if you did not set a new precedent. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Right. I've undone most of my recent edits (it still has the "156th Royal Scots and Scottish Rifles Brigade") but tidied up the section on the battle to avoid "Royal Scots" entirely - if you're wanting to avoid battalion identifications, this style probably should be avoided, as it's a bit confusing to use it to refer to the brigade as a whole. (This confusion was what got me fiddling with that section in the first place, in fact!) Shimgray | talk | 02:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What about a / the "battalion of 156th Brigade"? --Rskp (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
By saying "a battalion" we're picking it out specifically, you mean? I see the point, but I think it's worth emphasising that it was a single battalion rather than the main force of the brigade (or even of the division), which is the implication the reader might take away otherwise. (Unless you mean something else, in which case my apologies, I've lost you!). Shimgray | talk | 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed - but if you want to research the names of the battalions, the article will be the richer for it. --Rskp (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
First off, sorry about my terseness last night! Reading over it, I was a bit more confrontational than I meant to be...
Regarding ISBNs, the original standard (ISBN-10) is ten characters long; nine digits and a check digit which is either 0-9 or X. A few years back they converted it to ISBN-13, which is the same nine digits with 978 in front and a different check digit. The two can be automatically converted into each other, and they're functionally interchangeable. It really doesn't matter which you use; the standard is generally drifting towards 13, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And I should have gone to the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division's article sooner so I would understand more clearly what you were saying. About to change references so they conform with this article. :) --Rskp (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

IWM images

http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/qryPhotoImg.asp this link does not work. Can you provide a better source link? I tried to find these two image by different search means but to no avail. ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why it doesn't work. Its only recently that I became aware that IWM photos could be used in Wikipedia. These photos were downloaded on 9 January 2010. --Rskp (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
While the images certainly look out of copyright you really should find a source link we can follow. You can try to find the image and view just the image itself, then see if the url is unique and add that to the image entries. BTW, the file entries would be greatly improved if you would use the {{Information}} template, as I added to a few of your image but you can add and fill out the following:
{{Information
| description = 
| source      = 
| date        = 
| author      = 
| permission  = 
}}

ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. Thanks for the template - will use it in future. --Rskp (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just tried the link and it took me to the query screen but when I put in the photo reference number and the photo could not be found. Q_107245 is a format they use but I tried Q107245 also. Not sure what is wrong. I've got photocopies of the images with their details so I know the reference numbers were correct. These were downloaded a year ago - may be the IWM has changed its policy? --Rskp (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class review closed as unsuccessful

Because the 28 days allowed for our review process are now up, I've closed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Mughar Ridge. Unfortunately your nomination was not successful this time, although you should take encouragement from the many positive remarks made about your article and the improvements that have taken place during the review. If you still have the energy you are very welcome to resubmit the article after the issues that prevented its promotion have been addressed. There are a couple of offers of assistance on the review page (to which I'll add mine if you need another copyeditor - my usual WWII Normandy campaign fare is on hold at the moment so I find myself temporarily available). All the best and thank you for your contributions. EyeSerenetalk 13:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

AustralianRupert did warn me that there were not sufficient interested editors to do the assessment and I guess this has been the case. Yes, I would be most grateful if you could give it another copyedit as I remain interested in seeing this article progress. Thanks a lot for your interest :) --Rskp (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
There's some truth in that, though three reviewers is not unusual. It might also be that given the work that was underway, other reviewers believed that there was no benefit in their leaving additional comments. We try not to overwhelm the article nominator too much! Anyhow, thank you for your permission to work on your article - I'll make a start over the next week. Please feel free to revert anything I do that you don't agree with :) EyeSerenetalk 09:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
EyeSerene, not sure I understand you - is it mandatory to have three reviewers? At the moment I don't know how many reviewers evaluated this article - can you tell me? Regarding the copyedit, if you want to make any major changes, could you discuss them first? Your interest and time are appreciated. Thanks a lot :) --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
At least three "support" comments, and thus a minimum of three reviewers, are required for promotion to milhist A-Class. By my count the Battle of Mughar Ridge was reviewed by Fifelfoo, Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown - plus AustralianRupert's input though I haven't really counted him as a reviewer. If you'd like more detailed information on how the system works there's a full explanation here.
Re the copyedit, the only major changes (or changes that I'd consider major anyway!) are those I've already outlined on the article talk page. If you want to respond there I've got the talk page watchlisted. Best, EyeSerenetalk 09:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Powles p.205amman.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Powles p.205amman.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The tag {{PD-NewZealand}} was incorporated into the information when the map was uploaded. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As this image was published in 1922 it is out of copyright in the USA as well. So could you please remove the red USA notation. :)--Rskp (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Rskp, User:ImageTaggingBot is a robot and won't respond to your comments/questions. As far as I can tell, the only way to remove the red USA notation is to add "|commons}}" to the {{PD-NewZealand}} tag on the image description page. You are able to do this, if you so wish, but it will, however, commence the process of moving the image to Wikimedia Commons, which is the preferred location for images that are in the public domain in the host country and the United States. Essentially that will mean that eventually the image will be deleted on Wikipedia and moved to Commons, using the same file name. Not to worry, though, this will maintain the links in the Wikipedia articles. In order to avoid this in the future, for those images that you are sure are PD in the USA, it is best just to upload directly to Commons (you just need to create an account, similar to the way you created your Wikipedia account). I hope this clarifies things somewhat. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wavell_p.152.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Wavell_p.152.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As the author died before 1955 I was under the impression that the map was out of copyright. I have changed the PD- tag to UK as the previous tag was in red for some reason. As far as I can see there is no information missing from this map's copyright and licensing status. If there is still a problem with the copyright could you explain what it is so I can take steps to rectify the matter or cut the map. I too, take copyright very seriously and wish to avoid any wrongdoing. :) --Rskp (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Rskp, User:Chris G Bot is a robot and probably won't respond to your question. I've had a quick look at this one and, to be honest, it is difficult. There are a couple of points to consider here. (1) Wavell died in 1950. According to the template the PD-UK rule is 70 years after the author's death. As such I believe that you need to count on 70 years from 1950, which is 2020. Thus, I think it is possible that the image is not actually in the public domain. (2) Was the map drawn by Wavell, or was someone else the cartographer? Sometimes maps are copyrighted by their authors independently of the work in which they appear. As such, determining who the author is, and when they died, and thus whether it is PD or not, is not exactly a simple matter. Just a couple of things to consider. I'm not sure what the best COA here is, though. Sorry to throw a spanner into the works. It might be best just to ask someone to delete the image until you can clarify these points. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Map deleted today. --Rskp (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Also deleted Wavell map from Jerusalem campaign article. I think they are the only two Wavells. --Rskp (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination for Mughar Ridge

Hi, Roslyn. From the look of this edit [2], I think you are trying to nominate Battle of Mughar Ridge for a GA review. As the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page is now fully automated, the bot doesn't respond well to editing that page directly, for instance see what it did to your nomination here: [3] (it auto failed/removed it from the list). As such, the new way to nominate an article for GA, is to add the following code to the talk page of the article that is being nominated: {{subst:GAN|subtopic=War and military}}. The bot will then update the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page itself. I hope this helps and good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert - that worked a treat. --Rskp (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

adj=on

Hello, RoslynSKP. You have new messages at WP:HD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Romani article

Hi, this is turning into a proper work of scholarship ! Comment : Reference 68 refers to "Dowles" - I think this needs to be corrected to Downes. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - its all a bit rough and ready just now as trying to get it all tidy. Refs I know need to be grouped and will do it once its a bit settled. regards --Rskp (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GAN for Battle of Jerusalem (1917)

Hi, Roslyn, I've started reviewing your GA nomination of Battle of Jerusalem (1917). The review page can be found here: Talk:Battle of Jerusalem (1917)/GA1. I have made a few initial comments/suggestions that I feel should be dealt with before I continue with the review. Please simply respond on the review page, below my comments, but in the same section. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask and I will try to answer as best I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've completed the GA review now. I've passed the article, but I have a couple of suggestions for further improvement. I've added them in the criteria section. Please review these comments and make changes if you agree. Anyway, good work and congratulations on adding another GA to the Military history project! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918)

Actually, AWB (the software I was using) reformatted the references automatically while processing the page for the edit I was actually applying on my own, which was the categorization tag. I really can't presume to know how it's programmed to make or not make certain choices when it's doing that. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No problem. --Rskp (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta

Hi, I meant to drop you a line about our discussion of delta at User talk:Nick-D#Autogenerated citations last week, but it slipped my mind. It seems that delta was stepping on a lot of editors feet for various reasons at about the same time his bot was messing with your article, and other admins cautioned him over this and he was blocked twice. As this case was a couple of months old and pre-dated these warnings and blocks, I didn't seem much scope to take it up as an appropriate punishment had already been handed out. I hope that this is OK. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Basically I wanted admin to be made aware of what he was doing and hopefully stop him doing it again to some other articles. All the best :) --Rskp (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba

Just wanted to let you know that the copyedit is done. It's a very good article; best of luck with the GA assessment!--Miniapolis (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work. I really appreciate it.

Regarding the fantasses these were large rectangular metal water containers which were strapped to camels; one each side of the hump! (There is a photo of a camel with two fantasses in Carver between pp. 186/7 but I can't include it because its still in copyright.)

The ANZAC / Anzac thing is a grey area. The mounted division was actually called the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division' but it was widely referred to as the 'Anzac Mounted Division' both unofficially and officially (on Australian enlistment forms). I think there were two reasons Anzac was used a) a number of the brigades fought at Gallipoli in ANZAC and wished to continue to be identified with that corps and b) 'Anzac' was easier to say than 'Australian and New Zealand.' All the best :) --Rskp (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for defining fantasses; now I can picture them! And you're right about the ANZAC/Anzac thing; a number of "regular" words (snafu, for example) began as acronyms. Glad to help and once again, good luck.--Miniapolis (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Filenames

Although you're doing some excellent work on the articles, and you're finding and uploading some very good quality images, I'd like to ask that you give them more descriptive names when you upload them. For instance, "IWM Q50888" is nearly meaningless, and indicates only that it came from the Imperial War Museum; a far better name is "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918". The images' serial numbers can of course be retained in the descriptive text, and I will do this when I rename them; this is just for the images you will upload in future. DS (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the photo descriptions. As they stand this is a unique identification of the photo which identifies the institution holding the original and the number that institution has given the photo. If you change all these to descriptive titles then its possible to have more than one identical name. And the descriptive title is given in the caption anyway so why duplicate it in the name of the file? Please do not rename any images I have uploaded. --Rskp (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, if I might offer a suggestion, the solution I use is to incorporate both the serial/ID number and a brief description. For instance, I might name a file "AWM 99999 Rupert Smith at Gallipoli 1915.jpg", that way it includes the Australian War Memorial (or Imperial War Museum) serial number but also a description that allows someone to search for an image on the subject. Just a suggestion. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks AustralianRupert, but is this mandatory? If so how do I change the titles of photos already in wikipedia? --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC) PS Thanks for the congrats - yes, both articles have been a big struggle, but well worth it.
No, I don't believe it is mandatory, but I could be wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Four files have been deleted today by Fastily. DS has still not replied. How is it that these editors can change file names and delete files without notice or explanation? --Rskp (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Battle of Mughar Ridge a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Hi, Roslyn, I also want to congratulate you on getting Mughar Ridge up to GA status. You have been working on it for quite some time and while I think at times you may have found the review/copy edit process a little frustating, I'm glad you stuck with it. I'm on a semi-wikibreak for a while, but I will keep checking in every now and then and it would be great to see more of your articles reach this status. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File names

Sorry for not answering earlier; I've been a bit busy.

Here's the thing. Filenames which are descriptive of their contents are considered preferable to filenames which are effectively lengthy serial numbers descriptive of their provenance. HOWEVER, THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Consider, which of the three is the best option? "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg", "IWM Q50888.jpeg", or "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918 (IWM Q50888).jpeg" ?

Obviously, option #3 is preferable, as it indicates the image's provenance while remaining human-readable. If I had known how important it was to you that this information be retained in the filename (instead of just in the historical metadata), I would have done so from the beginning -- and, unless you have a further objection, I will implement this change. DS (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've read up on your talkpage a bit, and you've already discussed this issue. It's not mandatory to have descriptive filenames, but it's preferable. And in order to rename a file, you need to request the filemove user-right (or to be an admin). Your comment about the risks of descriptive filenames - what if someone else uploads a different image with an identical description - is insightful; this is already a serious issue when files are given shorter, insufficiently-descriptive names, and several of the most generic names (logo.jpg, me.jpg, picture.jpg, etc) are already locked so that they cannot be used for any files. DS (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In the future I will definitely make sure that when I upload photos etc the file name includes a description of some sort. Really until [delta] started changing these file names I did not think that this could be a problem nor did I think an administrator would be so unhelpful as [delta] has proved to be. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested to know that he's not an admin any more, and hasn't been for a few years. I'll see if I can get him to apologize -- but remember, he genuinely has the project's best interests at heart. DS (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
But if he is not an administrator, how did he change the filenames? --Rskp (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. There is {renaming the file itself), and there is (changing the references to that file). He has been doing the second. DS (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me how its done so I can change the file names which are not descriptive? --Rskp (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now, you can't. You don't have that user-right. When you look at image pages, the option to rename them is not presented to you. So it's not something you've been failing to notice. That said, I'll give you the user-right. DS (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

... and there you go. From now on, when you look at an image on the English Wikipedia, you will have the option to rename the image. (Note that this does not apply for images that have been moved to the Wikimedia Commons; that's a separate project and I'm not an admin there.) Articles will continue to function regardless of whether you update their references to the images (as long as the redirect is a single step), but that's marginally less efficient from a computational standpoint, so every now and then [delta] goes around and updates references to renamed images. DS (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Are there any guidelines for renaming photos? I'll take your word for [delta] having the project's best interests at heart - I do too. But whenever I've come across him in my work it has always been time wasting. Regarding Wikimedia Commons can you advise me where to find an explanation of how the Commons works with Wikipedia photos? :)--Rskp (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just checked - you have given me the ability to 'create' whatever that means but have taken away my ability to edit files. Can you fix this ASAP?--Rskp (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this so speedily. --Rskp (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what you mean. I have not removed any user-rights from you.

Here's what a standard registered user (such as yourself) can do: create articles; edit articles (non-protected and semi-protected); rename articles; upload images; upload new versions of images to pre-existing filenames.

And as of yesterday, you can also rename images. That's the only change I made. Perhaps you've misinterpreted something? DS (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well before 07:17 yesterday when I clicked on two separate and different photos to see the enlarged file version, they both showed a create option at the top and nothing else. After 07:36 yesterday options had been reinstated - more likely to have been magic than misinterpretation. I don't know why you felt it necessary to shout HOWEVER, THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I have merely been seeking to find out why the file names appeared to have changed and why. Thank you for explaining that [delta] has been changing the references to the files. So I guess all that is being done is that [delta] uses the move option? Would that be how its done? --Rskp (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Okay, I think I've figured it out.

You upload image "IWM Q50888.jpeg"

I (an admin) rename/move it to "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg"

"IWM Q50888.jpeg" becomes a redirect to "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg".

Any and all links to "IWM Q50888.jpeg" automatically redirect to "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg "; therefore, the article containing a link to "IWM Q50888.jpeg" remains functional. It takes an extra millisecond or so of processing time, but this is not noticeable at the human scale.

At this point, the article still works (its reference to the old name is automatically redirected to the new name), and the old name itself still works (looking at the old name automatically redirects you to the new name).

Next, [delta] (a former admin) comes through and updates the links which pointed to "IWM Q50888.jpeg", so that they now point directly to "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg". This is done for reasons of... tidiness, I guess?

At this point, the article still works (it points directly to the new name), and the old name itself still works (looking at the old name automatically redirects you to the new name).

A little while later, Fastily (another admin) comes through and concludes that "IWM Q50888.jpeg" is a "Recently-created, implausible redirect" -- presumably because he is unable to parse it as meaningful -- and speedy-deletes it as CSD:R3.

The article still works, because it points directly to the new name. However, Fastily has just deleted the old name. When you go to the old name, you get a notice that there is no such file by that name but would you like to create one. This is the standard message shown at the pages for filenames that existed once but have been deleted.

"Create a new page" is not a new user-right that was given to you. It is the result of a series of misunderstandings caused by people acting at cross-purposes. Also, you did not lose the right to edit the metadata associated with an image; rather, when you went to the old name after Fastily deleted the redirect to the new name, the metadata was no longer there (when a file is renamed/moved, it takes its metadata with it), and therefore there was nothing to edit.

I hope that clears things up?

  • Thanks very much for telling me how this result was achieved. --Rskp (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and since you asked: sometimes I just feel shouty. For emphasis. DS (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Can you tell me, given your shouty point that the institution's initials plus catalogue number and the descriptive names are not mutually exclusive, why "IWM Q50888" was not included when you renamed/moved it to "Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg"? Is it possible to request the following renamed/moved photos, along with IWM Q50888 be changed to incorporate the institution's initials and catalogue number as well as a short descriptive title? e.g. IWMQ50888-Bikaner Camel Corps.jpeg
  1. File:AWM photo J06585.jpg now File:Hong Kong Mountain gun battery in action (November 1917).jpg
  2. File:El Arish 00059v.jpg [location unknown]
  3. File:IWM Q12620.jpeg now File:4th Sussex Regiment marching through Bethlehem, 9 December 1917.jpeg
  4. File:IWM Q12647.jpeg [location unknown]
  5. File:IWM Q50888.jpeg now Bikaner Camel Corps, El Arish 1918.jpeg
  6. File:IWmphotoQ 012379.jpg [location unknown]

I have already started this policy when uploading new photos. Would you be interested in this compromise? --Rskp (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I did the human-readable-only rename instead of the compromise rename because I did not know, at that time, that you wanted the compromise. I will correct this in the morning, but now I am off to bed. DS (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I have given four of those six images compromise names, as we discussed. The other two have been transferred to Commons, and will be a little trickier to do. DS (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You can propose a rename on the Commons with {{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}}. From what I did looking around, what I seen done with archive images (like the Tropenmuseum and the Bundesarchiv) is the name of the institution, ID number, then description. Having just the ID number and a name won't be much to a lot of users. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that I didn't realise it was to do with transferring photos to WikiCommons. I've started to include a description with the institution and ID numbers in all files I upload but I don't know anything about the Commons (other than it exists and I sometimes fall into it, but don't know how to get back to Wikipedia so I have to log out). Can you take me through the process of adding description to the files that I have already uploaded to Wikipedia with just the institution and ID number? --Rskp (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked: Commons is a centralized repository of media files intended for use by all WMF projects. Let's say that there's an image that would be really good for illustrating articles on the English Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, the Dutch Wikipedia, the Japanese Wikipedia, and the Lithuanian Wikipedia. Copies of the image could be stored on each Wikipedia separately, but it's more efficient to have one copy on a centralized repository to which all WMF projects have access.

Images are still uploaded to Wikipedia separately for a few reasons: first, the Commons project was only begun in September 2004. General practice these days is that it's preferable to put images directly onto Commons if possible, but that wasn't always the case.

Also, note that "if possible". Images uploaded to Commons must be available a Wikipedia-compatible license, but such a license is not necessarily available to all images that we'd like to use in articles. That's why we've got the Fair Use policy. Different Wikipedias have different criteria re: what nonfree images they're allowed to use, and under what circumstances, but even the strictest (Spanish Wikipedia, which is "no nonfree images at all, ever") can use material from Commons.

Plus, Commons can take a while to explain to people.

As for how to give your already-uploaded images new names: it's just like renaming articles. I assume you're using the default "Vector" skin (if you don't understand this phrase, that means you haven't changed from the default!). At the top of the image page, there is a little row of tabs - FILE / DISCUSSION / READ / (star) / (downward triangle). The downward triangle opens a new menu, which gives you the option to 'view history' or 'move'. (If 'move' is not available to you, that means either the image has been locked against moving by non-admins, or it is on Commons and the renaming must be done there.)

Once you've found that, simply type in the new name (making sure to include the prefix "File:" , and the file extension (.jpg or whatever)), and then add your reason in the space marked "reason", and then click the "move page" button, and voila.

DS (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is it necessary to change the file names in the articles where the photos are, once the file has been moved, or does this happen automatically? --Rskp (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither. The image name within the article code doesn't need to be changed; the article code will still work fine with the old names acting as pointers to new names (unless someone moves them again; double redirects can lead to infinite loops, which is why they're not supported by the software). The advantage to changing the image name within the article code, even though it's not strictly necessary, is that when we use the old name which points to the new name, instead of using the new name directly, the page takes an additional fraction of a second to load. An additional tiny tiny bit of computational resource. For each such image. In each such article. Every time someone loads the page. Consider how many page views Wikipedia gets per day.
It's not done automatically, and the articles will still work properly even if it's not done at all. But it's marginally more efficient to do it, and those "marginally"s add up. Okay? DS (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Katia

Hi, Roslyn, I've made a couple of tweaks to Affair of Katia, which you may wish to review to make sure you agree. Feel free to change anything you don't agree with. One suggestion I have is to add a couple more citations. I've marked them with one edit and reverted. Please see this diff: [4]. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - agree about the citations and they have been added. Regards --Rskp (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, it is an impressive body of work that you are building up. I'd do the GAN review myself, but I have to leave civilisation behind for a month starting this Friday, so I probably wouldn't have time to finish it off if I started it. If I get some time, I'll read through the article some more and provide a couple of other suggestions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Katia and Battle of Megiddo (1918)

Hello RoslynSKP. Obviously you have some issue with my application of the {{TOC limit|2}} template to these articles, however, as you failed to state why in your edit summary I have no way of knowing what that issue is. I have no problem with you having a different opinion, although I think it only reasonable that you actually state the rationale for reverting my edit rather that just saying that you did. From my POV these articles have too many headings and this markup allows us to simplify the table of contents without deleting too many headings. Please see WP:TOC. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anotherclown, In both cases the simplification of the contents particularly in so short an article as Katia is counter productive. The contents is there to indicate what areas the article covers not a bland list of generalised headings. But thanks for drawing my attention to the contents hierarchy as I found an error in the Katia headings and you have given me an idea to reorganise the Sinai and Palestine campaign article headings. --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anotherclown, re the Mughar Ridge battle - I've changed your Battle heading to include the date and cut the fighting subheading because its unnecessarily repetitive. By the way the reason there is no justification for this and previous changes is because I have not used the undo function in article history because I've wanted to fully understand the implications for these changes rather than simply undoing them. --Rskp (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've undone this edit. Please read WP:MILMOS/C which provides a list of 2nd level headings that should be included in Battle articles. Once again I note that you did not provide a rationale for undoing my edit. BTW some of your TOCs really do seem quite large, for instance Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Surely you might consider simplifying this (either by deleting headings or limiting the TOC)? Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Anotherclown, I've undone your edit of Battle of Mughar Ridge because there is nothing in WP:MILMOS/C which sanctions it. Your insistence on the standard heading does not make any sense, it does not improve this Good Article and is misleading. --Rskp (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

File:Gullettp83.jpeg You did it again!
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Affair of Katia a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Busy templates

Hello

You may not be aware of the Underconstruction and Inuse-section templates, which will prevent other users interrupting your edits, or at least deter them. HLGallon (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I had used them in the past but forgot where to find them. :) --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle_of_Romani page - pointer to a primary source, candidate photo

I am very impressed with the Battle_of_Romani page, and I see you are due much of the credit - thanks!

I looked at the page because I have been reading the diary of an Australian Light Horse signaler involved in that battle - the diary may be a useful source for you as well: William Peterson diary, 1 January 1916-13 August 1916 MLMSS 2472

( Of course, Wikipedia prefers secondary or tertiary sources, and this is a primary source, but that is sometimes okay: Wikipedia:Verify; Wikipedia:PRIMARY)

I did want to WikiLink the word Heliograph on this page, but since you have the "in work" template up, I'll hold off.

It seems the Australians used heliographs a lot during the buildup to this battle - the diary refers to having seven(!) heliographs in action at one time:

"[Page 217] 22nd June Thurs. Bir-El-Abd. Turned out from Ogratina at 9pm and another long and tedious night march Arrived at Bir-El-Abd (a mere clump of palms and a good well and took up a position Outposts were sent out to various points and for several hours we had a difficult time in sending and receiving messages 7 Heliographs were going at once."

I don't know that, in the context of the Battle_of_Romani article, the use of heliographs rises to the importance of an image, but if it does, I would nominate this Wikimedia photo, since the subject is of the correct nationality, location, and year for the battle: Australian heliograph signaller in Egypt in 1916 : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Australian_heliograph_signaller_Egypt_1916_AWM_C00243.jpg . Macchess (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your interest. Yes, please add the link and the photo. I like to use as many photos and maps as possible to liven up the article. Tho just now I'm working through a complicated re edit, grouping the references as I go, so I'd appreciate it if you could wait until that's done. I've read a 2nd Light Horse Signals Diary which gives a very good idea of the interesting work they did along with pigeon post, riding bicycles and motor cycles in the desert/or did I see that in a photo?. At one point I think during the advance to Bir el Abd heliographs were set up on Katib Gannit so the advancing mounted units could keep in contact and their positions known - it would be a nasty death if they got lost. But you are right unpublished primary sources will be rejected - I use the war diaries occasionally to clarify some detail but can get away with it only because they are available on the web. --Rskp (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I'll do it after you finish. Please note there is currently a "Cite Error" warning on Reference 85, and while I see several references citing Gullett 1941, I don't see a full cite for Gullett. Looking around, I'm planning to cite Hammond ( Hammond, EW, History of the 11th Light Horse Regiment, Fourth Light Horse Brigade, Australian Imperial Forces, war 1914-1919, (Singapore 1984) as well, via the excerpt here: Battle of Romani, since it discusses both the intricacy of the heliograph network on August 7, and the novel use of moonlight rather than sunlight for the heliograph that got Sergeant McElligott and Corporal Groundwater mentioned in despatches. There might be some useful other material there for you. By the way, the Turks used heliographs in this campaign, too, though the closest photo I have is of them at Huj, in present day Israel: Turkish Heliograph at Huj (the helio there is the leftmost instrument, and the aiming arm has been folded back) Macchess (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That Hammond article describes actions by the Mobile Column not Desert Column; this was a small and largely ineffectual unit operating under direct orders from GHQ not Chauvel. Its been noted they had some problems with communications. --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the Affair of Katia talkpage - 24 Sep

Hello again RoslynSKP. I'm not sure this edit is really correct ([5]). For instance not only have you deleted the article history, you have also deleted the comments of another user (namely User:AustralianRupert). This is generally discouraged by the community. As I am sure you meant nothing sinister by the edit, perhaps you can you please explain what you were trying to do? I think perhaps you want the article to be reassessed for GA? AFAIK it is currently a GA after the last review, unless it was delisted. If this is the case a Peer Review might be more appropriate (otherwise I think you might need to delist the article as a GA and then request another review, which seems a little self-defeating). Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that User:Jim Sweeney has now reverted your edit anyway, so I guess this is resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anotherclown, yesterday I couldn't find the wording to apply for a GA for the Battle of Romani article - what I found remained red - so I went into the Affair of Katia talk page and copied what I found there. I wasn't aware I had changed anything; I certainly didn't intentionally delete the article history and AustralianRupert's comments. So, I'm really sorry to have made this mistake and am very grateful to Jim Sweeney for reverting it. Many thanks to you for letting me know. --Rskp (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
No dramas. Like I said above I was sure you meant nothing by it. Obviously an honest mistake (which we all make). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian Light Horse at Beersheba

Hello RoslynSKP. I have been following your work on the ANZAC mounted troops in WWI for a while now with interest. It is obvious that you are very knowledgeable on the subject. While checking on the Wiki Cavalry article I noticed that the section below has been carrying two "citation needed" tags for a couple of years. Grateful if you could either (i) endorse the two statements made (if possible with supporting references), in which case the tags can be deleted; or (ii) reword the paragraph in a way that ensures the Light Horse get proper recognition for their charge without inviting counterclaims. Many thanks. Buistr (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade became famous for the Battle of Beersheba in 1917, where it made the most successful cavalry charge in the Great War[citation needed], considered by many military historians to be the last great cavalry charge ever made.[citation needed]. They made the charge using their rifle bayonets, since neither sabres or lances were part of their equipment.

Thanks for your comments. These assertions regarding Beersheba have been made by a number of historians beginning, I think, with Gullett but at the moment the Transjordan operations have my focus. Regards --Rskp (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Second Transjordan

Hi, Roslyn, in the "Evacuation of the wounded" section of the Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt (1918) article, there is some errant html mark up code in the quote box. "[quoted in Woodward 2006 p. 179]</ref>". I'm not exactly sure of what style is being used here, so I didn't play around with it. Would you mind taking a look at this and fixing as you see fit? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rupert, It may be that the source was copied from the net so I retyped it and cut the original also added a missing ref. Is it ok now? Regards, --Rskp (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes it looks fine now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On the same page

Roslyn

I've been examining your excellent work and it appears as though we have been working on the same page, just different places.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Woerlee

If you are interested in chatting further, please let me know.

Cheers

Bill Woerlee (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit request update

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoslynSKP/Archive_1&oldid=1139111715"