User talk:Gl359

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:ATObadge.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:ATBadge.jpg. The copy called Image:ATBadge.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ATBadge.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:ATBadge.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ATObadge.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:ATObadge.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private [Proficient]

Regarding this edit: You're probably correct, BUT, the problem is, PACMAN doesn't say that. You need a reference to support that, and you haven't quoted one ...
Happy to help if I can ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for the latest additional information.)

Changing subject a little, what is the significance of the difference between [Private Proficient] and Private [Proficient]?

(FYI: I simply copied "[Private Proficient]" from the table in PACMAN Ch1. I haven't noticed the use of the term "Private [Proficient]".)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole topic has raised a lot of discussion since I was a soldier serving on HMAS Tobruk. The sailors saw they were the equal of LCPL yet the duty roster did not reflect this and they had problems with the fact I was promoted from PTE to CPL, skipping LCPL and after only 27 months in the Army. I intend to raise this matter up through the Army Chain of Command to clear up any uncertainty, particularly as Able Seaman now have a badge of 'rank'. In the Army we were always told that once we were PTE(P) (as PTE Proficient is written) we were the same as Leading Airman and Able Seaman. With much more joint operations occuring and men and women from different services serving under senior ranks from other services, this is probably an issue that needs to be formally resolved. Cheers, Gl359 (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for that, too. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian War Memorial

I have no particular opinion either way on your issue, but the fact is that Wikipedia requires the citation of reliable sources for material to be included. If you've got the sources (newspaper articles? magazines? etc), then feel free to cite them and you won't get the slightest dispute; if it's just your opinion, then it's going to get fairly promptly removed from the article by the first person who catches it. Rebecca (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]