This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collingwood26 (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 10 March 2013 (→Copyright). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:41, 10 March 2013 by Collingwood26 (talk | contribs) (→Copyright)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
January 2013 - Happy New Year! 
2013 Tasmanian bushfires
Hello Collingwood26,
Your page about the Tassie bush fires seems to be coming together quite well! It will be interesting to see how many more page views it gets (1,486 @ 5 January 2013).
Just a few points I want to bring up:
- Do you have a source for the 12 houses destroyed at Bicheno? I'm sure its correct, just keep wp:verification in mind!
- Please take care with your ref syntax, as your ref for the Queen's message was missing a lot of needed parts. (I have fixed it, see here). Another ref, everything was correct but you left out only the 'closing' "}}" at the end, see here. I strongly suggest you use the in-built 'cite' tool (as I usually do), then all you need to do is fill in the boxes! See also Help:Citation tools
- Be wary of wp:close paraphrasing as some of your edit here is very similar to the source. I have re-edited it a little (with a few unrelated tweaks) to be more different, here
- I moved the page from "... Bushfires" to lower case "... bushfires", as this is apparently the normal practice.
Hope I haven't come across as preachy 
, just trying to help!, Happy editing! Regards ~ 220 of 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You definately haven't come across as "preachy" :P, actually I really appreciate this message thankyou!!! And Sorry but I can't find the reference for the 12 houses destroyed at Bicheno, but I distinctly remember seeing it, we will just have to wait a little longer. Details at the moment are still sketchy. Also thanks so much for the referencing tips, I will be sure to use them ^_^ Hope to hear from you!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that! Some editors are so 'narky' when you try to help them.
- Generally though, better not to put something on a page without a source, unless it is rather self evident ie. "The world did not end on December 21".
- As for referencing, another strategy is to put all refs in as Bare URLs, then use the Reflinks tool to do most of the work for you. Better perhaps for use in userspace, than a 'live' page though. And don't forget to preview the page, especially if doing a reference manually.
- Writing what a source says in your own words is important, some prolific long-term, editors have got into heaps of bother (and been banned IIRC) for wholesale copying of sources.
- p.s. {{P|1}} ≡ , different numbers give different emoticons
(№ 27), see also Template:Smiley 
- 220 of 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Singapore
Hello Collingwood26. Multiple editors have now reverted your change to this article, including of course myself. As such if you still feel this change is required I suggest you discuss it on the talk page. Currently there is no consensus so continuing to change it without discussion may be seen as disruptive. Accusing other editors of trying to cover up the truth or downplay the fate of the Australian soldiers captured there is not helpful (nor is it particularly sophisticated). Hint: a couple of us are Australians so the issue is probably more a disagreement about style and editorial content than anything else. That said why do you feel the need to seperate their experience from those of the 80,000 allied soldiers that were captured in Singapore (such as the British and Indians)? Doubtless they all suffered equally at the hands of the Japanese. Anotherclown (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It is the British who surrendered Singapore so they themselves caused the suffering, why do I want the 15 thousand Australians to be acknowledged?? Because people don't know about it, in fact I would be okay if the numbers of the British and the Indians were included too. The 15 thousand Aussies captured and killed was the fault of the British surrender. --Collingwood26 (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Queensland floods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright
Hey I nticed that your article Battle of Parramatta was deleted due to copyright problems, and now I've had to go through Battle of Khaz Oruzgan as well. I hope you know that you can't just copypaste stuff from sources, whether cited or not. I'm considering opening up a copyright investigation against you, but that may be premature since I haven't went through that many of your articles yet. Are there others that have been noted as a problem? Wizardman 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Parramatta wasn't deleted for copyright, I asked for it to be deleted. Secondly, Battle of KHAS Oruzgan NOT Khaz Oruzgan, is not copyrighted either, I personally read Taylors book to which I gave a description of each part and put it into my own words. If you read the book then read the article there are marked differences. Although I have referenced his work anyway. What?!?! Your going to have me banned just because I write articles about Australian battles? Racist much? 0_0--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)