Bofors40mm

Welcome!

Hello, Bofors40mm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Sparrow Force

Hi, Your work on the Sparrow Force article and related topics is really good. Those photos of all the members of the unit are excellent (though sad considering the fate of many of these men). Regards Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

MILHIST

Hello, Bofors40mm, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Has Sparrow - A chronicle of defiance been published yet? If not claiming it as the source of the images is a bit disingenuous as the book must therefore be yours but you're not prepared to say where you got the images from. If, and I'm talking here mostly about the unit snapshots, they are photos you were given by men or their families who were members of the units concerned and/or actually appear in the photo then just say so. Also the date and location of the publication of the book is important for the use of the licence {{PD-URAA}} as this licence is about dates of publication. The conditions in it all have to be met and I'm not currently seeing compliance with any of them. The good news is that a) the UK shots because they can be pretty accurately dated to pre 1 January 1942 meet the requirements of {{PD-UK-unknown}} and the Australian images meet the requirements of {{PD-Australia}}. I suggest you change the licenes accordingly until such time as the conditions of {{PD-URAA}} are met. NtheP (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, the book has been published in Australasia and is in the process of being distributed globally. In the book, the unit photos were provided by those interviewed for the book.--Bofors40mm (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Great news on both fronts. I look forward to reading it once it's published in the UK. Can I suggest that the source on the images is changed to indicate who originally provided the images and the more immediate source of the book. Assuming there have been more than 30 days between publication in Australia and publication in the US AND that no copyright is now being claimed on the photos (the first two requirements of PD-URAA) then you can change all the licences to {{PD-URAA|pdsource=yes}} and either {{PD-UK-unknown}} or ((PD-Australia|Commons}}. This makes sure that the third requirement of PD-URAA is met and is also notification of PD status in both the US and the country of origin of the photos. NtheP (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mitsushima POW Camp.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mitsushima POW Camp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2, I went through this months ago. It's gone through all the verification conceivable. --Bofors40mm (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bofors40mm, just a reminder you shouldn't remove deletion tags. However, you should post the verification at the debate in question.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Usapa Besar POW Camp.png

Thanks for uploading File:Usapa Besar POW Camp.png, which you've sourced to McLachlan, Grant. Sparrow - A Chronicle of Defiance. ISBN 978-1-481-03751-8. p.773. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, I AM Grant McLachlan. I went through all this rubbish months ago. Everything is kosher, OK? Otherwise, please tweak to bring it up to your level. --222.155.19.221 --Bofors40mm (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Help in maintaining NPOV on historical Pacific War aviator

Hi Bofors40mm. Because you listed "Japanese military history" as an area of interest on the WikiProject Military history page, I thought you might be able to lend some help.

I'm looking for some third parties to review a problem editor who (in my opinion) continues to violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia on the page of a Pacific War aviator, Mitsuo Fuchida. After exhausting myself trying to maintain viable content in the "Controversy" section, I'm asking for a page ban for this user. If you have time and motivation, I'd really appreciate your consideration to review this issue. The Noticeboard Request is to be found here: [1] I hate to take anyone's time, but this problem is why many won't trust Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration.--TMartinBennett (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cowra POW Camp.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cowra POW Camp.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:WWII Royal Artillery Cap Badge.png

A tag has been placed on File:WWII Royal Artillery Cap Badge.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:QF 40mm LAA Cannon.png

A tag has been placed on File:QF 40mm LAA Cannon.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Clydebank Blitz bomb map.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Clydebank Blitz bomb map.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Greenock Blitz bomb markers.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Greenock Blitz bomb markers.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What pisses me off.

I am a big supporter of Wikipedia and contributed a lot of material. The most annoying aspect is dealing with zealous editors who delete the copyright status of original graphics that I created for my book.--Bofors40mm (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate being blocked because a zealot editor won't discuss the issue disputed!

User:JamesBWatson, I really don't appreciate being blocked because a zealot editor won't discuss the issue disputed! I create a lot of original content and I am sick of my material being challenged. I have been working on my book for over ten years and my material has been in the wikisphere for a long time. I have even seen my material on other websites and even published in books. I contributed that material for the public domain. I challenge anyone who wants to claim copyright over work that I have done. Now, please remove the block.--Bofors40mm (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent copyright infringements. When you first came here, you may have sincerely thought that "because I say so" was sufficient justification for a claim of copyright, but we have long since passed the stage where that might reasonably be the case. Claims of holding copyright must be supported by evidence, and claims of fair use must be accompanied by fair-use rationales. These requirements are not academic: we do get people coming to Wikipedia and making false copyright claims. Nor is it sufficient to say to other editors "instead of nominating images I have uploaded for deletion, it is up to you to provide correct copyright information", because if you have uploaded a file then you know where you got it from and what evidence of copyright you have, but another editor is unlikely to have that knowledge. The first messages about copyright problems came to this page in 2006, and they have been numerous and frequent since May 2012. At present I have blocked you for a short while, in the hope that doing so will convey the message that compliance with copyright requirements is not optional. I hope that, when this short block ends, you will give the matter more care, so that you can avoid being blocked for longer. (Incidentally, attacking editors who take action in connection with the problem does not help your case.). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bofors40mm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In every case, I have created the content that has been challenged and in each case the issue has been resolved. In many cases, I am the only person who visited a national archive, found a rare file where any copyright does not exist, and shared it on Wikipedia. The most recent examples are examples of research I have conducted being shared with other organisations and they have also posted it onto their websites. Most of the graphics I have posted have been specifically and exclusively posted on Wikipedia, usually to visually demonstrate a point raised in an article. I believe that my posting of my own original work on Wikipedia is completely justified and I resent people challenging my integrity, especially considering I do not hide my real identity. I have done back into my digital archive and found my original files and wish to publish them in the place of those posted on the Clydebank Blitz and Greenock Blitz articles tonight. At least allow me that opportunity. Bofors40mm (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declining: WP:SOCK is not permitted, and you've now jumped into that area feet-first (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bofors40mm, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SuperMarioMan 15:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The block has been extended to 2 weeks on this account, and indefinite for your evasion account. Please don't feel singled out - this is a gift we give to all of our prolific sock accounts, and those who choose to break the rules they agreed to on this private website (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, I am very busy in real life, but managed to grab a few minutes to log into Wikipedia to help you by posting further explanation, to help you understand the reason for the block, since it was clear from your unblock request that you had misunderstood. So, when I log in, what do I find about the editor that I was willing to give up time to help, valuable time that I can ill afford? I find that he has been evading the block with an account that he has used to throw accusations and attacks at various editors, including myself. So I shall depart in peace. I may or may not come back when I have more time to offer you the help that I had in mind. (You may or may not also find it worth your time reading the reply I posted to your diatribe on my talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bofors40mm, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SuperMarioMan 14:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to abuse multiple accounts and continuing to spam references to that book. Given that this is your only reason for editing Wikipedia I'm blocking this account for an indefinite duration. You have expertise on the topics you are working on, but abusing multiple accounts and promoting what may be your book in this way is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, there's been a lot of activity on my account that I can't make sense of. I've looked back at all the stuff above and can't figure out what happened. I got a bit peeved at someone who kept deleting material that you praised me for adding. Since then, all hell has broken loose. It all seems to have started after the "Theleopard" fraca.

What I can see is that someone posted images from the website of my book and material from my book, which was rolled out (published) in July. I did a soft launch of my book so academics in Australia and the UK could review my book and reference the book on sites such as Wikipedia and Goodreads. They may have also linked to my original material on Youtube.

What I was not aware of at the time was that it looks like someone first undid their additions and then made a nuisance of themselves by pretending to be me. Then things escalated. I'm wondering what the motives behind it were. I had to look up sock puppetry! My publisher even tried to get involved and you blocked her as well! My Youtube and other pages were attacked by pro-Indonesian Timorese as well.

Anyway, I was informed of the crazy goings on by fellow contributors. How can we sort this mess out? Can you help? I would like to contribute some material that improves these pages. I also know that others would like to contribute but fear that they would be accused of sock puppetry. If you could keep an eye on this page as these improvements are made, that would be great. In the short term, can you please unblock my account? --Bofors40mm (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be unkind, but I see no evidence from your contribution history that this account was ever hacked (and note that evidence of this is grounds for the account never being unblocked - please see WP:COMPROMISED: applied strictly, this rule means that your statement that the account was hacked means that it can't be unblocked). Assuming that the Klautmedia (talk · contribs) account is your publisher as they claimed, their editing was restricted to posting unnecessary references to your books, and not any attempt to set the record straight. As part of their unblock request they actually said that you have no further interest in editing Wikipedia - please see User talk:Klautmedia). I don't see any reason why people would impersonate you for the purposes of posting unnecessary references to your book. Also, am I right in thinking that you recently used the DoubleReds (talk · contribs) account? If you would like to be unblocked, you can request this using the unblock templates above - you're not banned or blocked permanently, but the reviewing admin will want to see assurances that you will not act to promote your book after being unblocked (eg, that you will not post any links or references to it) and will stick to a single account - if you haven't done so already, I'd suggest that you first take the time to read WP:COI and WP:RS. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bofors40mm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Cheers for clearing that up, Nick-D. Rather than revisiting all the messy matters aforementioned point by point, I have now read all the contentious matters and now have a good understanding of how to prevent a repeat of what has occurred. I would appreciate that, if you choose to unblock me, that you keep an eye on these pages to ensure that quality and the Wikipedia policies are maintained. If other editors get involved like they did before, I will direct my concerns through you. I am part of a group of people who wish to maintain several pages, which include academics and curators in Japan, East Timor, and Australia. There are exhibitions, documentaries, and books that have increased awareness of these topics so we do want to ensure that additions to these pages are properly handled. There are two areas where I am still unclear: # I've used some of my interviews as references to two incidents in East Timor in 1942. I've posted the relevant clips on Youtube and they are currently in the Western Australian Museum's "Debt of Honour" exhibit. Can I cite these? # I've donated some photos from my book that have been unreferenced on Wikipedia for years (before I fully understood the Wikipedia policies.) Can someone please reference them? If not; can I delete them as they are only mentioned in my book? Thanks for your help up to now. --Bofors40mm (talk) 10:26 am, 13 October 2013, Sunday (19 days ago) (UTC+1) Bofors40mm (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Long enough for ESL's last comments to be responded to. You can replace your unblock when you have addressed them} Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• (Non-administrator comment) The request ignores the problems raised by WP:COMPROMISED. It should also be noted that DoubleReds (talk · contribs), the account named above, is now essentially proxy-editing for this user by resuming the citations of the book in question, representing the user's interests on talk pages, and uploading images on the user's behalf. SuperMarioMan 04:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SuperMarioMan, the book is not self-published but is published and distributed globally in several formats, one of which is an Amazon friendly format so the academic work can be part of the ESPRESSO printing machine system. Nick-D, please have a look that this. The edits made today recite several references, none of them should be disputed as an unreliable reference. The work cited is on display at a current Western Australian Museum exhibition. --DoubleReds (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked the DoubleReds account - please see my explanation on their talk page. The credibility of these accounts is greatly undermined by the large number of contradictory explanations which have been offered for them, and I don't think that whoever is behind them is being entirely frank about what's going on. The common thread in all the accounts is that they repeatedly insert unnecessary references to Grant McLachlan's book, despite this not having support in relevant talk page discussions. This creates, at a minimum, a case that the underlying purpose of all the accounts is to publicise the book.

I certainly don't discount there being, at the heart of this, a good-faith effort to improve these articles. However, the behaviour around the book is not acceptable, and I'd like to see a frank explanation of what's going on. There's no need to post any personally identifying information, but please explain the number of people involved, what you're hoping to achieve and how you want to work as part of the Wikipedia community. I appreciate that learning curve-type issues might be a problem here, but it's not being helped by all the different accounts racing around behaving in unhelpful ways and disregarding the views of other editors on the use of the book as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where to start, Nick-D. An historian in Canberra kindly offered to meet with you over a coffee to sort out this mess. All of the people who have helped so far have been blocked and had their edits undone. They aren't sockpuppets. Often, they are the relatives of those I interviewed for my book and fellow experts.

The simple fact is that I spent a decade getting all the published material, all the documents, and I video interviewed all the surviving members of Sparrow Force. I created the original Sparrow Force page to promote discussion to ensure that I completed a thorough job. The Sparrow Force pages has a lot of material that isn't published anywhere else. A publisher has published my book (available in six formats globally), a lot of material is on Youtube, and my material is in museums in Sydney, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth, and Canberra. Ian_Skennerton will back me up, there is nothing wrong with the quality or accuracy of my work. While I have added a lot of references to so many other published works, it is only my work that has been removed - even when other academics have added it after they reviewed it. That is grossly unfair and I really don't know what to do to get things right. If you wish to review my book, the chapters relating to Sparrow Force on Timor are visible in the preview here on the Kindle Bookstore. Please tell me what more I need to do. --Bofors40mm (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone offering to meet with me, though I wouldn't have accepted the invitation as this isn't a one-on-one type thing (Wikipedia doesn't work that way). While the edits you and DoubleReds (are you different people?) made to the articles improved them, the problem is that the approach which has been taken has violated a number of Wikipedia's conventions and rules - in particular, edit warring over the book and what appears to be either sockpuppetry or "meatpuppetry". It's important that you recognise that Wikipedia places a strong emphasis on collaborative editing, and people also get really worried about anything which looks like an attempt to use it for advertising purposes. The steady stream of accounts which have been turning up and insisting that the book be included while ignoring the concerns which have been raised over it are rubbing people the wrong way. The varying explanations for these accounts which have been offered also doesn't generate confidence to be frank.

At the end of the day, if you want to include references to the book in articles you need to gain agreement from other editors given that there is concern over whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for being considered a usable source (please see WP:RS and WP:COI if you haven't already). If the views of other editors remain that this isn't a usable source for Wikipedia's purposes, this needs to be accepted. I hope that this clarifies what's lead to the blocks. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, I'm happy with how the pages look and read. User:AustralianRupert and Ian_Skennerton have tweaked the improvements that DoubleReds made.

I'm happy for the {citation needed} to remain in the pages. Over time I am sure that the disputed book will reconcile your concerns. As for your allegations of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and edit warring: I wonder what your next contrived excuse to block me and others will be? YOU are rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. --Bofors40mm (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the short form of what I see as problems:

1. You and your book(s) are not reliable sources, unless the WP:RSN says the book is
2. This will still not allow you to ever edit any article relate to your books(s)
3. If you told someone to edit the article, it's blockable for both of you
4. Wikipedia is not "academic-friendly" as we do not permit the publishing of the type of research that academics are trying to publish

These are the rules you agreed to when you (and your friends) signed up to this private website - they're not optional ES&L 22:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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! Kirill ^[talk] 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:2 2 Ind Coy Officers.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 2 Ind Coy Officers.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2 11 Field Co No 2 RAE.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 11 Field Co No 2 RAE.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2 12 Field Ambulance.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 12 Field Ambulance.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:79th LAA Bty RA Transport.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:79th LAA Bty RA Transport.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2 2 Ind Coy Officers.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 2 Ind Coy Officers.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

Also:

• File:2 11 Field Co No 2 RAE.png
• File:2 12 Field Ambulance.png
• File:79th LAA Bty RA Transport.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2 11 Field Co No 2 RAE.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 11 Field Co No 2 RAE.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

Also:

• File:2 12 Field Ambulance.png
• File:79th LAA Bty RA Transport.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The Sparrows Hat.png

The file File:The Sparrows Hat.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Australian AIF rising sun.png

The file File:Australian AIF rising sun.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)