User Talk: Melbguy05

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Copyright licensing and copying within Wikipedia

Please have a look at Talk:No. 657 Squadron AAC ↗ and review Copying Within Wikipedia ↗. When you created the article, you did not attribute the content as coming from another article, and you copied over another WP:COPYVIO ↗ made by another editor at the original article. When Copying within Wikipedia, you must attribute in edit summary. I've now made a dummy edit to provide that attribution, and added a template to the talk page. '''Sandy'''Georgia (Talk) 10:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of :Emergency Response Unit (Cyprus) ↗ for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''':Emergency Response Unit (Cyprus) ↗''', to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency Response Unit (Cyprus) ↗ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Arnold Charles Walker

Arnold Charles Walker ↗ was unambiguously a Warlpiri man, so the direct can be in :Category:Warlpiri people ↗, even if the link target also is. See WP:RCAT#Alternative names for articles ↗. Likewise most of the other categories you removed here ↗. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Mitch Ames}} Hi, I moved the categories from the redirect as he is known for cultural reasons as Kumanjayi Walker. I didn't move all of them across to the article as I thought some were not appropriate. Thank you for providing WP:RCAT ↗ for alternative names. Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
::In some cases the redirect (Arnold Charles Walker) should be categorised, but not the link target - eg Arnold Charles Walker should be in "Warlpiri people" (Walker was a Warlpiri man), but "Death of Kumanjayi Walker" should not (his ''death'' is not a a Warlpiri person). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Mitch Ames}} Should it be Arnold Charles Walker ↗ or Kumanjayi Walker ↗ in :Category:Warlpiri people ↗? Melbguy05 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Both, per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles ↗. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for George Pell ↗

50px|frameless|left ↗

An article that been involved with ( George Pell ↗) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ({{no redirect|1=name to be decided}}). If you are interested, please visit the discussion ↗. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/0HH0LYN1GHT

Hi Melbguy05, I am glad you recognized the sock and filed an investigation. Their known socks are now blocked but as we both know will likely return. Socks waste so much of our time. S0091 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith ↗

Hi, I've started an RfC on the talkpage of Ben Roberts-Smith ↗ that may be of interest to you. ''AlanS''talk 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: ‘burden of proof’ diff

Not going to contest it, just want to flag that it’s an arguably incorrect statement of the law, in my opinion. But thank you for your contributions; especially your wonderful contributions to enhancing Australian content on this site. I’ll leave it be Jack4576 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Jack4576}} Can you please elaborate further on "incorrect statement of the law"? Melbguy05 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

purpose of parameter |Colours=?

Hello Melbguy05, Thank You reaching out, the purpose of adding this colour parameter was simply to add force colors in infobox , that are both used in the force's uniform and flags. I hope you can help me in this regard.

Regards,

Procrastinator Procrastinater (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Procrastinator}} I see you added a separate infobox to Islamabad Police ↗ for Service colour and Uniform Service colour. There are infobox examples here:Infobox Embedding ↗. Melbguy05 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC ↗

left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗ because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Lack of references provided to prove notability'''</blockquote>

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 {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, the speedy deletion ↗ process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comments displaying on WikiProject Australia/Article alerts

Hi @Melbguy05, I have an WikiProject Australia article I plan to seek Request for comment. I noticed your request for comment displaying on WikiProject Australia/Article alerts. Can I ask how you did that please? regards '''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 07:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Rockycape}} After creating a request for comment WP:RFCOPEN ↗ on the talk page of the article. I used Template:Rfc notice ↗ to post a notice on WikiProject Australia. regards Melbguy05 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you.'''Rockycape''' (t ↗ • c ↗ •g) 03:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NSW Police Force Logo.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:NSW Police Force Logo.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

LSH-T vs LST

Just a heads up, you removed the mention of the Landing Ship Transport however cited it as the Landing Ship Heavy (Landing Ship Heavy-Tank), both are entirely different vessels. The LST can be seen here clearly flying the AWE https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/15129-government-announces-next-gen-army-landing-craft-heavy ↗ and the this is the LSH-T flying the ANF https://www.bmt.org/news/2024/bmts-caimen-large-ready-to-meet-australias-landing-craft-heavy-requirements/ ↗. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form ↗) 22:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Nford24}} The December-January issue of Defence Technology Review magazine says Damen's LST 100 design is for Land 8710 Phase 2 landing craft heavy LCH for the Australian Army with the first to be delivered to the Army in 2028.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bostock |first1=Ian |title=Defence goes Damen for LCH design |url=https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-dec-jan-2025/flipbook/18/ |access-date=29 March 2025 |work=Defence Technology Review |issue=115 |date=December 2024 – January 2025 |pages=18-19 |url-access=registration}}</ref> I've never heard of a Landing Ship Heavy-Tank for the ADF. Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::I feel like this will turn into a time will tell situation, but locally they're referred to as Landing Ship Heavy-Tank's (Same as the Balikpapan's) to replace the Balikpapan Class vessels, which were also built for the Australian Army under a land contract.<ref>{{cite web |title=Balikpapan Class Heavy Landing Craft (LCH) |url=https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/balikpapanclasslch/?cf-view |publisher=Naval Technology |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref> The LCH (LSH-T) is intended to be part of the RAN as noted in 2014,<ref>{{cite web |title=Assistant Minister for Defence – Final farewell for Navy’s landing craft |url=https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2014-11-19/assistant-minister-defence-final-farewell-navys-landing-craft |publisher=Department of Defence |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref> with Land 8710 form part of Joint Plan 2048, with the amphibious LCH's being Phase 5.<ref>{{cite web |title=Army Capability Issues: As CLEAR as Daylight |url=https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/australian-army-journal-aaj/volume-15-number-2-spring-edition/army-capability-issues-clear-daylight |publisher=Australian Army |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref> I should also note, that the army LCM-1E's were, procured under JP 2048 Phase 3<ref>{{cite web |title=Australian Government Agrees to Purchase Watercraft from Navantia |url=https://www.navaltoday.com/2011/09/29/australian-government-agrees-to-purchase-watercraft-from-navantia/ |publisher=Naval Today |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref> were ultimately crewed by and transferred to the RAN.<ref>{{cite web |title=Australia’s Amphibious Ambition |url=https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/australian-army-journal-aaj/volume-8-number-1-autumn/australias-amphibious-ambition |publisher=Australian Army |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref> Havig been to sea on HMAS Wewak ↗, I hope they're just less rough.— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs ↗) 12:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

On the SWAT article

@Melbguy05 Recently saw you reverted my edit again on the SWAT ↗ article. I propose two solutions to the issue regarding use of the term in other countries:

# Go back to this revision ↗ where use of the term in other countries is it's own section
# Rename the article to "SWAT in the United States" or "SWAT (United States)" and make a separate article called SWAT (China) or SWAT in China
I don't think simply having the article being called SWAT means it is solely in regard to the United States, rather if the article should solely be about use of the term in the US it should be called "SWAT in the United States"; However I would prefer option 1, since a section on SWAT teams in other nations seems the most logical.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In regards to the SWAT (China) draft

@Melbguy05

Hey,

Seems like Draft:SWAT (China) ↗ is doing pretty well, is there anything you think needs to be improved so far? I think it could be ready to be moved to mainspace; I also some questions:

# Should I add the insignias of SWAT teams which currently don't have articles(basically everything outside Beijing SWAT; Shanghai SWAT has it's chinese wikipedia article)?
# I found this book/journal ↗(铁路公安特警执法与训练实务 [Railway SWAT law enforcement and training], 2017, from Wang Xuzhang(王旭章) and Li Yandong(李廷东), ISBN 9787565329685 ↗ or ISBN 7565329681 ↗) from the People's Public Security University of China ↗ dedicated to railway SWAT, however I have no idea how to access it, may I ask if there is any way to access books online?

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for

your keen eye and scrutiny at Porepunkah police shootings ↗. Much appreciated. 103.87.254.62 ↗ (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Elite status for SDU

I started up a thread on the talk page for discussion to explain my reasoning behind the revert. ⇒SWATJester ↗ Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

List of Australian Army aircraft Edit

You recently edited the List of Australian Army aircraft ↗ page after me, with the edit summary "''Boeing AH-64 Apache-removed'' WP:OR ↗ ''and incorrect information"''

A review of the edit does not show that you "removed" the Apache from the page. I'm also unsure of what WP:OR ↗ you are referring. References were made to defence and army sources, as well as reliable 3rd party news sources on the delivery of the first two apaches?

No original research was done, all information was sourced from the references. Yes the $306m contract portion was misread and I'll admit that was wrong. However I'm not sure how that then results in you removing everything I put in (it wasn't all wrong), and removing all sources I included, and then providing only primary sources for the information, including a Liberal party link which is surely considered self published. Surely the news sources I included serve the statements better than a liberal party page that has already been deleted.

KarmaKangaroo (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
:{{reply to|KarmaKangaroo}} The WP:OR ↗ I was referring to was "Ordered to replace ageing and issue prone ARH Tiger. The Apache will enhance the Army's ability to conduct amphibious movements". None of that was sourced with a reference. Since I removed "$AUD 306 million US FMS contract", I decided to add the liberal party media release which was made during the caretaker period as it had the cost of purchasing the Apaches as more than A$5.5 billion not A$306 million. ''Australian Defence Magazine'' and ''Vertical Magazine'' quoted directly from the Defence Ministers media release dated 2 October and the Boeing Australia media release dated 2 October." WP:PRIMARYUSE ↗: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation." I wouldn't categorise either of the two as a secondary source. WP:PRIMARYUSE: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." Melbguy05 (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::The amphibious part is mentioned in the Army.gov.au page an and the ADM article, with the following sections: ''"The AH-64E Apache brings significant capability improvements that will '''enhance the lethality and tempo of land and amphibious force manoeuvres'''"'' <ref>{{Cite web |title=Boeing AH-64E Apache {{!}} Australian Army |url=https://www.army.gov.au/equipment/aviation/boeing-ah-64e-apache |access-date=31 October 2025 |website=Australian Army {{!}} army.gov.au}}</ref> and ''"“These new attack helicopters are critical to modernising the ADF and transforming the Army into a force optimised for '''littoral manoeuvre''' and long-range strike," Minister for Defence Industry, Pat Conroy said. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Boeing delivers first two AH-64E Apache helicopters - Australian Defence Magazine |url=https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/boeing-delivers-first-two-ah-64e-apache-helicopters |access-date=2025-10-31 |website=www.australiandefence.com.au |language=en}}</ref>.
::The sentence should have also included this reference for the "error prone" section. ({{Cite web |last=McHugh |first=Finn |date=18 Jan 2021 |title=Apache fleet to replace error-prone Tiger helicopters |url=https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/apache-fleet-to-replace-errorprone-tiger-helicopters/news-story/71fdd9eee10251076ee1291d4b3c2c4d |access-date=30 Oct 2025 |website=news.com.au}}). However I think would be common knowledge of people familiar with, and part of the wiki project for Australian Military that you contribute significantly to, that there was a 2016 ANAO report into the ARH, that found numerous issues, including 76 capability deficiencies, with 60 critical; these led to lower-than-expected availability. And was not as you claim WP:OR ↗.
::Yes, I conceded that I got the cost part wrong, it was late, I was looking for the cost and misread it in the reference. My point wasn't that primary source can't or shouldn't be used, moreso that the use of a Political party's "press release" ''particularly during an election and campaign period'' (the care-taker period) the wording could be interpreted as somewhat self serving or congratulatory, and could be argued is a self-published and not independent primary source, and on top of that doesn't even exist anymore except in archive. A source that synthesises the AONA report, the initial press release in 2021 from Linda Reynolds, the 2022 press release on the number and cost, might be more appropriate.
::So I guess again, I still don't see why it warranted removal of everything and not just an edit to correct the cost and maybe add/replace some of the references. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|KarmaKangaroo}} Perhaps, I acted too hastily calling "Ordered to replace ageing and issue prone ARH Tiger" as WP:OR ↗. In hindsight, I should have used WP:V ↗ as there wasn't a inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. If you had of cited the news.com.au ↗ article, I would have challenged the statement that the ARH was "..ageing and issue prone.." in the article's talkpage. The news.com.au article you cite does not describe the ARH as "ageing". Since the publication of the ANAO report in 2016, several senior Army officers have made statements regarding the ARH such as Brigadier Steve Jobson, commander of the 16th Aviation Brigade, who said in mid July 2018 that the ARH was a "truly world-class platform" as reported in the August 2018 issue of ''Defence Technology Review'', the September 2018 issue of ''Asia Pacific Defence Reporter'' and in the June 2019 edition of ''Australian Aviation''. The August 2019 issue of ''Defence Technology Review'' reported that the "Tiger ARH today is consistently performing very well". The ''Australian Defence Magazine'' reported in November 2021 that the ARH was "..now performing very effectively in the ARH role for which it was purchased".
:::I would challenge your claim (although cited) that the Apache will "enhance the Army's ability to conduct amphibious movements". According to the May 2022 issue of ''Defence Technology Review'', "marinisation and deploying off the LHD ↗s were not included in the list of Land 4503 requirements" and the Minister "reacted poorly to learning" this from the Chief of the Army. Melbguy05 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

{{Sources-talk}}

Over-zealous reverts

Hello, I'm MondoAus.
I noticed that you reverted one of my edits to an article yet again (List of equipment of the Australian Army ↗), but you didn't check or read properly first, as I '''did''' provide a citation. I have resubmitted my edit.
Furthermore, your somewhat regular over-zealous and semantic reverts, including for minor details / updates when these are already verifiable on the applicable article or within an existing citation, is becoming tiresome. This has now occurred multiple times.
Please desist from following me around Wikipedia undoing / reverting correct information (instead of good faith basic research or citation additions). For some reason, I have also noticed on some articles that you don't seem to 'correct' other edits that fall into the same category, which makes me feel your Wikipedia 'policing' is a little targeted. MondoAus (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

February 2026

Do you want to try to explain your point of view by email?

We've had the same argument on two pages now, so I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding something about your point of view that would be easier for you to explain without spectators?

The email address I added here isn't an inbox I check often, so let me know if you do send something, I'll see it if you "@" me here or message me on my talk page.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)