Jump to content

User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Archive Note

Everything on Archive #1 is from 2017 to the end of 2018, Archive #2 covers 2019 J-Man11 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

13 Regiment RLC

Hi I see you recently created two articles, 13 Regiment RLC and 13 Air Assault Regiment RLC. These look to me like two articles about the same regiment, though 13 Air Assault Regiment RLC is much tidier. If they’re about the same regiment would it make sense to request that 13 Regiment RLC is deleted? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

J-Man11, should you wish to stay on this site, you have to fix this. You *MUST* take responsibility for your actions. There is a difference between a redirect and displayed text on a link. A redirect quite literally shunts you to a different page entirely, and this is what you should do here. Read WP:REDIRECT and then redirect 13 Regt RLC to 13 Air Assault Regt RLC. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought I already fixed it.. I got rid of it and redirected.. apparently it didn't save? J-Man11 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No, you didn't actually redirect it. Somebody else fixed it for you [1]. Take a careful look at the code of that edit for when you need to do it next time. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No drafts, whether sandbox or not!!

Peacemaker67 and I have both asked you to stop creating new pages. This applies to pages in mainspace, drafts, or even sandbox drafts, because you are not properly sourcing them, and they will likely be deleted because they are not properly sourced in time. Cease and desist, please. Peacemaker67, am inclined to apply a block. Your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

They "may" have misunderstood the restriction applied to the sandbox as well. So far as I am concerned, this is their last chance to fix up the articles, drafts and sandbox drafts they have already started, and get them up to minimum standard per previous guidance. One more article, draft or sandbox creation, and a month-long block will be imposed. You are not completing the work you are starting. Go back to your first article/draft/sandbox drafts and add multiple reliable sources, cite it properly (not with bare urls), and then let one of us know when you are done. Then we will see if there is enough for an article to remain. Then we'll move on to the next one. If you don't do this, it is highly likely most of your work will end up deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That's correct I didn't know you meant the sandbox too, I thought you just meant the Draft: and the / ones..J-Man11 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
For 1 Sigs Regt, please start by applying Template:Cite Web to citations 6, 7, and 8. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright I made a few changes to all the signals regiments ones..J-Man11 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I would much appreciate it if you would focus on your signals regiment drafts rather than promising and working on a whole bunch of other things. You've amassed an enormous backlog, and both I and PM67 have many other things to do. Note also please that companies of battalions (like Guards incremental companies) and signals squadrons of regiments (like 200 Sigs Sqn) have been deemed not to be notable, and will like not make it out of draftspace. They're part of a larger regiment/battalion. Only independent companies have been deemed definitely notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

will do! J-Man11 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made a lot of changes lately so.. what do I do now?J-Man11 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There are still issues with 1 and 2 Signal Regiments, as I've noted on the talk pages. Address those first, then I'll show you how to write a MOS:LEAD for one of them, then you can write leads for all of your drafts. As you finish the leads, I'll assess them for moves to article space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
J-Man11, insert this text [[:Category:Regiments of the Royal Corps of Signals]] into all your signals regiments drafts IMMEDIATELY, please. Do not insert the nowikis. Do not delete categories again, please, as you just did with Draft:1 Signal Regiment (United Kingdom). WP:CATEGORIES are key to navigating Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. " Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Will do, I thought I just deleted one that was "un-linked" but ok.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
That was because it was in Draft: space. The only thing that would be required, when it was ready to move to mainspace, was to take the first : out. Then it could be switched to mainspace without trouble. Now, [2] is incorrect. Only Category:Regiments of the Royal Corps of Signals is required. If you check that category, you will see it is inside the regiments of the British Army category and the Royal Corps of Signals category. If you leave it like that, the article will be in three levels of the category structure at the same time. Take the other two categories out. Do me a favour, follow my instructions, not more (like extra categories), not less, and you'll get along faster. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So... any news or anything its kinda boring just sitting around editing on old articles and not making new ones that I really love.. J-Man11 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll write the lead for 1 Signal Regiment in the next day or so and fix the MOS:BOLD errors, then you need to do the same thing with the articles you've already drafted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it! J-Man11 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I expanded the lead of 1 Signal Regiment. You need to do the same with each of the articles you've created, properly summarising what is in the body and bolding alternative/historical names in the lead. As you finish each one, let me know and I'll check them. I will now move 1 Signal Regiment to article space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow that cool, also I've decided just to leave the last changed name as bold.. J-Man11 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
So I'm working on 3 and 7 atm.. but can you let me know how the 2nd Signal Regiment's intro is? J-Man11 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and Buckshot06: - In all fairness, the sandboxes are on me. The post is gone now, but earlier I had told J-man that he could create as many sandboxes as he likes since it was his own userspace (we even have notification & warning templates advising new users and vandals to go to the sandbox for practice edits). I get that J-man has created alot of pages and then just left them incomplete while going on to create more, and we would like to see him finish what he starts. But I had to speak up here because I was surprised to see someone threatened with a block for using their own sandbox. He should feel free to continue practice-editing in his sandbox(es), without fear of being sanctioned, as that is exactly what they were designed for. (jmho) - wolf 01:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I knew someone told me I could use sandboxes, thats why I was so surpised when they told me I couldn't.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Using your sandbox for practice edits shouldn't be a problem, but it would be a good idea to not use them as a platform to create entire new pages until you have brought the existing pages you've created up to article standard. I agree 100% with Peacemaker and Buckshot on that. But it seems you are working on them, so that's good, keep it up. Cheers - wolf 01:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough.. I do like making articles and editing them.. I'm kinda addicted to it now ha ha.. but better is preferred over more.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's right, we want quality over quantity. For example, 1 Signal Regiment is now a C-Class article for WikiProject Military history, and that is a good effort. If you can replicate that on the other drafts you have created, you will be doing well. Keep it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not easy but I'm trying on the other atm.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Signals Regiments

@Peacemaker67: Can you check out the 2nd Signal Regiment? J-Man11 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I did a copyedit, added a bit from one the sources and reworded some of it, have now moved it to article space and set up the talk page. I'm assuming good faith regarding the offline sources. Good work. Now make the other signal regiments like 1 and 2 and you'll be cooking with gas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow thanks!! But question.. what do you mean "I'm assuming good faith regarding the offline sources".. What does that mean? J-Man11 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I worked on 7th Signal Regiment if you want to check that out.. I don't have much to put in the intro though..J-Man11 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means that I haven't been able to verify them myself because I don't have access to them. Given we have had some issues with sources not reflecting accurately what is in the article (wrong pages etc), I am assuming you've got them right and they actually support what is in the article. I'll take a look at this one next. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I can give you a little section of text or something if you want proof, because I don't want to cheat the system.. J-Man11 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Also.. how would a page like this [[3]] be? It seems to be exactly like that other website we were using.. It seems like a good source as its main source is the French Army's historical "book" on the units and history of the army in the Battle of France. Also, in addition the sources are shown on every page. J-Man11 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If your interested I've wanted to work on division pages for a lot of things as I have a lot more French and italian divisionary information now. So if you to check this out: Can you tell me how this looks?J-Man11 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
france1940 website isn't reliable. With any source, the author, publisher and the source itself need to be separately reliable, and we don't know who the author is (or their expertise), it is self-published (generally a no-no unless they are an acknowledged expert, usually having had books published by reputable publishing houses), and it hasn't been checked against other sources to see if it is even accurate per the original source. So, you can't use it. What you need is the French book it is supposedly drawn from. I'll have a look at the draft, but if it based on this website, it won't be ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't use that page for it, I used the niecester or whatever page along with my French and italian army book. I'm starting to learn some french and germany military terms lately so I quite like doing both languages now.. The reason why I asked about that page is because if you look here: France Order of Battle the order of battle is linked to that page..J-Man11 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Using Niehoster's work is ok, but using a webpage linked to by Niehorster is not. It isn't his work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II is a self-published source by an author who is not reliable and should not be used in articles. Before you create other French articles, I suggest you obtain copies of print (hard copy) books that are actually published by reliable companies. Kges1901 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Again I ask thought.. overall how is the page? Because I'm trying to do a new style and I thought it looks better (than what I had) J-Man11 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:HMS Medway sea trials.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

14th Luftwaffe Field Division (Wehrmacht)

G'day J-Man11, have a look at what I was able to do with 14th Luftwaffe Field Division (Wehrmacht) using Mitcham. We don't need dodgy sites like Lexicon der Wehrmacht to create and properly cite articles. I suggest if you want to create similar articles, you use this article as a bit of a guide on the minimum standard. Of course, in the longer term, we'd want some info about what the division did in Norway and Denmark, were they involved in any atrocities, what was the command structure they were under, but this is a good start. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That page was sooooo great and easy to follow, but if I can't use it I have a few other good books and articles so I guess I can keep going.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You can’t use it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I know, well now I do, I have other articles I can use though.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If you have used it for other articles, delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:HMS Medway sea trials.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Medway sea trials.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. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Panzer III 10 panzer division France.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ordersofbattle.com

I don't believe www.ordersofbattle.com is reliable, mainly because it is a self-published source. While it lists sources, each page doesn't list the sources used, and there is no indication anywhere that the person who puts it together is an expert on orders of battle. Do don't use it. Use books like Mitcham or use www.niehorster.org (Leo Niehorster has a PhD and is an acknowledged expert on orders of battle), used in quite a number of Featured articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

www.niehorster.org your joking right? XD I've been using that forever I just never referenced cause of my book on the UK order of battles.. well fair enough ok.. It's a shame all the useful and easy to find pages are all "not allowed".J-Man11 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly why I have been telling you to use books. Niehorster is a notable exception, as are uboat.net and Haugh's convoy database, but don't bother with websites other than those ones. I suggest you ask me or Buckshot06 BEFORE using a website other than the MoD one. Stay away from axishistory, lexikon der wehrmacht, vojska etc, they are basically just fanboi or gaming websites, and they aren't reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Panzer III 10 panzer division France.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Panzer III 10 panzer division France.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. 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 any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army Order of Battle (September 1939), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lancaster and Weymouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2007 British Army order of battle

Notice

The article 2007 British Army order of battle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article creator has not provided any rationale for choosing 2007 for this order of battle, despite several opportunities to do so. We would not have orders of battle for every year of the existence of the British Army, so why this year in particular? Why is this year notable in respect of the order of battle of the British Army?

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}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for it to be deleted almost 5 times and it keeps being stopped.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Other websites to avoid

Also do not use feldgrau and axishistory, as well as lexikon der wehrmacht. They are not reliable. Given your keenness for websites rather than books, any other websites you come across, run it past Buckshot06 or I first before you start using them. That will save you (and us) some heartache. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a list of like 10 website 4 have been deemed not good so far, but I won’t hesitate to ask.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Divisions of Vichy France (Armistice Army)

It's commendable you're working on these formations, using Niehorster as a source. But I would request you kindly to first establish, with references, the page Armistice Army, using as a basis the text at Military history of France in World War II, and then adding all your proposed text for any Group of Military Divisions/Corps and divisions there first. From that point, please, should you wish to do further work, create the two Group of Military Divisions' articles first, and only then, the divisional articles.

The reason for working on the higher structures first is that any other relevant information added by later wikieditors on the whole Armistice Army has a place to go. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me but can I ask what you need me to actually do on that page? I just made a rought draft: 1st Group as the "higher formation" 1/7 commands would that be ok? And than go down to division pages and regimental pages? J-Man11 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1. Copy the text at Military_history_of_France_during_World_War_II#French_State_Army_(1940–44) into the Armistice Army redlinkpage. Start the page by saying 'The Armistice Army was the army of Vichy France, formally the French State, from 19xx to 19xx..' WP:DICDEF says that 'Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic,' which is what you will be doing.
2. Reference that text, using Niehorster or other.
3. Find the commanders from 1942 - 44. Reference them.
4. Write up the orders of battle you wish to write at that page. Merge Draft:7th Military Division (Vichy France), Draft:14th Military Division (Vichy France), and Draft: 1st Group of Military Divisions (Vichy France) into the Armistice Army page. Check WP:SIZERULE about page lengths, whether it goes over say 60kB of readable prose size (WP:RPS).
5. Establish links from Military history of France during World War II, and Vichy France, to Armistice Army.
6. If it goes over that 60kB of actual text size, establish 1st Group of Military Divisions, and/or 2nd Group of Military Divisions. Keep everything at the higher organisational levels unless you go over SIZERULE and need to establish an another page. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
So pretty much make the page and just put all the information I previously had into 1 page? J-Man11 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless you go over the RPS size limit, yes. Adding some of the Google Scholar results for a "Vichy France" and Army search would be good too. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Where did all that text in the article come from? Have you forgotten about having to reference everything? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought you told me to copy those things over....? J-Man11 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I did. But the article I mentioned was Military history of France during World War II. You appear to have copied the material from Vichy France. When you copy text from one page to another, you must say in the edit summary something like 'text copied from Vichy France' and insert the link, because the copyright was for when it was inserted at that article. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:COPYWITHIN. The standard edit summary for such copypasting is "copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution". Please follow this when copypasting within WP. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks PM67!! I have done the final touches and transferred the article to mainspace; it's a total of 14 kB. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

sounds confusing but I'll try and see what I can do J-Man11 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Nice to see things working out for you Jman. (Thanks to some fine mentoring by PM67 & BS06). Keep up the good work. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 08:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Well thanks I’m trying to make things (better) because I have A LOT of stuff I want to add. So might as well make it good. J-Man11 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

27th Alpine Infantry Division (France) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 27th Alpine Infantry Division (France), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop the editorial comment

I've asked you before to stop making comments in articles beyond things you can directly cite!! It's been common for twenty plus years to NATO units to have deployment arrangements that would include other nations' HQs; multinational engineers, artillery, signals, all the CS arms. Especially when you leave spelling mistakes behind as well. STOP WRITING THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT *DIRECTLY* CITE.

Peacemaker67? I feel this is not working out at all well, with J-Man11 incapable, for example, of even following my instructions properly above re the Armistice Army, and I am inclined to recommend to you some very severe restrictions. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking.. what do you mean by a "editorial comment?" Is that adding information about units and stuff in the article? J-Man11 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI - you shouldn't remove part of someone's comment... either remove all of it or none of it. In this case, you shouldn't remove any of it, considering there is a ping to PM67 to respond. But I'm sure it was just a mistake anyway (right?). - wolf 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
If I did, it was a mistake because I was responding to the comment and I didn't want it to go to the bottom.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
An editorial comment is giving your personal view on something, an opinion. Here is was saying "29th Engineer Brigade had a very strange structure" (by including other states' units). Saying it's "strange" is just your WP:POV. Don't give your editorial comments; they are WP:OR. The only time we can insert such things is when other WP:RSs say them. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Uhm ok fair enough so don’t add my opionion / view? J-Man11 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Never! Your opinion/view is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

I've decided (regretfully) to put the new pages / drafts on hold for a bit to finish up the rest of the drafts that I've left for about 4 months.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the 1976 BAOR OB, unless Peacemaker67 disagrees; it's not ready for Wikipedia. Keep it offline and reference it better, especially 7th AA Brigade, before bringing it back here. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a draft also, what do you offline? J-Man11 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Jmho, but you should be able to save it in one of your sandboxes, as that is your own userspace. (Some editors literally have hundreds of subpages that sit untouched for years). fyi - wolf 01:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
That's perfectly adequate. Take it to a sandbox, J-Man11. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Rifles & infantry battalions/regiments

@Buckshot06 or @Peacemaker67 would either of you mind looking at either my 2 RIFLES or 3 RIFLES pages? J-Man11 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have. Remove the Twitter references, which are not reliable enough, date the "before" and "after" A2020 far more precisely, and upmerge the remainder to The Rifles. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand about individual battalions of infantry regiments. Don't create articles for them. The idea with Wikipedia is to get articles to WP:Featured Article status, and your articles are in general skeletons; so just add the data to the regimental page. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The RRS has individual battalions though.. I’ll try to add the information. Though. J-Man11 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't. Add the Rifles data, with exact dates (NOT just "Before Army 2020" and "After Army 2020", which is so imprecise as to be almost useless) and then focus on getting your existing drafts up to standard. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II

I have noticed that, on 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division, you used this as a source. I have previously told you above that sources like this that are WP:SPS are not reliable for use in articles. In general avoid sources not published by reputable publishers. High quality English RS sources for the Red Army in World War Ii include the books of David Glantz, for example, which you should be making an effort to use instead of Pettibone. Kges1901 (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll go further. DO NOT use Pettibone at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Endorsed - do not use Pettibone. Find better sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 12th Signal Group (United Kingdom) has been accepted

12th Signal Group (United Kingdom), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Naraht (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 13th Signal Group (United Kingdom) has been accepted

13th Signal Group (United Kingdom), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Naraht (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 7th Military Division (Vichy France) has been accepted

7th Military Division (Vichy France), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Naraht (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 14th Military Division (Vichy France) has been accepted

14th Military Division (Vichy France), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Naraht (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 7th Regiment Royal Signals has been accepted

7th Regiment Royal Signals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Naraht (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:2nd Battalion, The Rifles has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2nd Battalion, The Rifles. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:3rd Battalion, The Rifles has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:3rd Battalion, The Rifles. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:8th Battalion, The Rifles has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:8th Battalion, The Rifles. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please cease doing squadrons of regiments !!

299 should be addressed in the article on 23 Regiment. Whether it's a signals squadron or an engineer squadron, should be in the regimental article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Do not create articles for squadrons or companies, they are rarely independently notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Just my 0.02¢, but couldn't J-man work on writing and sourcing some of these "interesting histories", for squadrons such as "591, 299, 82, 751, and 873", in his userspace (subpages/sandboxes), and then add said content to the appropriate Regimental articles, under sub-sections of the particular squadrons? Wouldn't adding these histories help round out the Regimental articles? It's just a thought but, J-Man obviously wants to add more interesting and relevant content. However, I would defer to @Peacemaker67 and Buckshot06: on this. Cheers guys, keep up the good work, all three of you. - wolf 09:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If J-Man11 would just provide citations to reliable sources as they go, they could just add information on the regiment articles. We are going to end up with a lot of junk in the sandbox that hasn't been cited unless they start citing as they go, instead of adding screeds of content without proper citations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
26 Engineer I worked on that, can you tell me if that's ok if I used that squadrons type? J-Man11 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you absolutely sure there was no field regiment numbered 26 active during World War II? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
From what I can find, no because during WW2 many squadrons merged to create "Divisional Engineer Regiments" but normal "Engineer Regiments" were created mostly after the war in 1947 and 1956.. J-Man11 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WHEN THESE CORPS ARE CREATED AS ARTICLES HOW DO YOU THINK THEY ARE GOING TO BE LINKED IN IF PEOPLE REMOVE REDLINKS? [4] Buckshot06 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Don’t know what you just said but I’ll try not to do it? I got rid of it because it makes the article not look complete J-Man11 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
You removed redlinks for, for example, 104th Rifle Corps. How will 58 RD be connected to that article, when it is written, if you and or others remove the redlinks?
Read WP:REDLINK again; our articles are never 'complete'. DO NOT REMOVE REDLINKS. Even WP:Featured articles have redlinks. If you continue to remove redlinks I will block you. You are not the authority as to whether an article is 'complete' or not. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah Buckshot, I'm sure blocking won't be necessary. I, like many others removed redlinks when I was new and like many others, did it because I thought redlinks looked like dead pages and needed to be removed, making the article look better. In fact, I believe there used to be a barnstar awarded to users that removed lots of redlinks.

Once I then learned that redlinks help promote article creation; (see a redlink? That is an subject in need of an article) and that adding redlinks to your article for subjects likely to become articles only served to have those links in place in your article already, once they turned blue.

I'm sure J-Man will read the redlink guidline, and will stop removing redlinks, except for those that should be removed. Hang in there J-Man, this is another one of the many, many rules and guidelines this project has that people have to learn along the way. Take it easy and keep up the good work. - wolf 03:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I thought the red links made it look ugly and un-"organized", but now I know though so it should be ok hopefully.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as 7th Battalion, Royal Scots, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.theroyalscots.co.uk/the-territorial-battalions-in-ww-2/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. 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.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

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:7th Battalion, Royal Scots 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! –dlthewave ☎ 14:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviews

@Buckshot06: OR @Peacemaker67: would you mind look at This I haven't made a draft because I feel I dont have much, albeit it's not done but can you just let me know it is for now.? J-Man11 (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Where are the references? Are you sure you have the correct title? Where did you get the information from? User:Buckshot06 (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, I made this The Royal Scots and Cameronians Territorials just now but I don't know if I should change the name to 2nd Battalion, 52nd Lowland Volunteers.. But I've been trying a new style of the articles, if you don't mind letting me know how it looks (compares to my old ones).? J-Man11 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Address and fix your copyright problem before you do anything else!! User:Buckshot06 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey J-Man, I have to agree with Buckshot here. Copyvios are very serious issues on WP and you should be focusing on that, and that only, until it's resolved. I think Buckshot might appear somewhat frustrated here because you come across as distracted sometimes, not focusing on, or responding to, items brought to your attention. I know these articles are important to you, but you want to make sure they are done right. No point putting in all that effort if it's just going to be deleted for a policy violation, right? I also know that you have a lot on the go right now and that seems to be part of the problem. You should try to focus on one article at a time. Work on it until it's completed, make sure there are no issues, and only when you know it's good to go for article space, then move on to the next article. You might find things going a little smoother for you that way. (JMHO) Keep at it though, you are doing some really good work here! - wolf 22:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing for me to work on in 7th Battalion, Royal Scots as it was deleted (the copyrighted part), even though it wasn't copyrighted.. so what would I do then? J-Man11 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
How do you know it wasn't copyrighted? If you believe you are free to use text from that site, you can have the deleted content restored. In the post above titled "Copyright problems", there are instructions on how you can do this. That's something you can work on. - wolf 23:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
http://www.theroyalscots.co.uk/privacy-policy/ maybe from that? J-Man11 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You tell me. Do you see anything on that page that states their content is not copyright protected, or that they give permission for their content to be freely copied onto other websites and other types of media? Have you read through that entire page? And more importantly, have you read through all of WP's copyright policies? - wolf 03:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That page doesn't say anything about a copyright or reuse policy. –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Lancastrian Volunteers

Hello, J-Man11,

Thanks for creating The Lancastrian Volunteers! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains(talk) 03:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted this page, acting under WP:IAR. DON"T CREATE ANYTHING NEW, IN MAIN OR DRAFT SPACE, UNLESS IT HAS REFERENCES. YOU MUST SHOW SOURCES FOR WHAT YOU WRITE!! THIS IS NOT A FAN SITE!! Buckshot06 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was literally about to add references right now.. Well fudge there goes 1 hour of my life down the drain.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
lol... just add the refs before you save the page to article space. That way, you won't get yourself in so much shit all the time. (I could Buckshot yelling from here... ) - wolf 19:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was told not to make drafts anymore that's why I haven't or else I would do that.. J-Man11 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
WOLF DID NOT MENTION DRAFT SPACE. HE SAID ADD THE REFERENCES BEFORE YOU HIT THE SAVE BUTTON. READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, AND YOU MIGHT GET IN LESS TROUBLE.
READ WHAT PM67 and I WRITE, AND FOLLOW IT, AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO STAY HERE. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Dorset Territorials moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Dorset Territorials, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster talk 17:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Uhm no? [Dorset] it wasn't moved.. J-Man11 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:British Army Volunteers. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your references are not supporting your statements

You're doing some very sloppy referencing; getting a general statement from somewhere and attaching a vaguely related reference which does not actually support it. I'm about to move West Riding Battalion back to draftspace.

  • DO NOT CREATE ANY MORE SANDBOXES, DRAFT ARTICLES, OR MAINSPACE ARTICLES, until I or PM67 authorise you to
  • GO FIX YOUR REFERENCING

I am talking to PM67 about what to do with you; we'll get back to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The ONLY THING you are allowed to do in mainspace is to WP:MERGE your Draft:The West Riding Battalion to the Yorkshire Volunteers, which is a tiny article and could easily have the whole West Riding Bn text added to it directly. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hang in there buddy, you'll be ok. You should do the merge. If you need help, just ask. Then wait an see what happens.
Maybe just a warning.
Maybe some kind of ban, which means you can still edit, and the ban will either expire or you'll be able to appeal it after awhile.
You might have to take on a dedicated mentor, which for you could be a good thing.
Maybe it'll be a block, which doesn't have to be as bad as it sounds. Take the time off to relax, do other things, or read through policies and guidelines, get to know them, watch other articles go through the creation process and learn, or practice off-wiki with writing articles and finding and adding sources for them.
Then come back a better editor. Either way, if something happens, don't just quit entirely. (And don't edit with another account) Stick around and carry on, ah-yite? Like I said, hang in there, you will be ok. Cheers - wolf 05:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Having had some of this brought to my attention by Buckshot06, I'm leaning towards another block, longer this time. You don't seem to be getting the message, you have plenty of articles and draft articles that you haven't properly sourced that you could be fixing up, but you are instead creating more and more articles with poor or non-existent sourcing. Verification is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Your time here is pointless unless you source what you do, as you go, so that people can check the sources say what you claim. Wikipedia is not a receptacle for you to dump "interesting" data without providing reliable sources. It is an encyclopaedia, and for it to have any value, it must be credible and properly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Since Buckshot had suggested removing J-Man's ability to move pages to article space, could that be considered as remedy to explore? Also, I know you two have spent a lot of time assisting J-man, but would either of you consider yourself as mentors? If not, could requiring J-Man to partner with a mentor be a possible remedy to explore? Perhaps combine the two; have it that only the mentor can approve movement to article space? Maybe some other ideas not suggested here yet? A block, especially a lengthy one would be a shame, as J-Man has done quite a bit of work, and his heart (and intentions) certainly seem in the right place. It would be unfortunate if a block were so long that J-Man becomes discouraged and doesn't return. You could also consider the options listed in my previous post just above. Anyway, this is just my 0.02¢. I'll leave you to it. Cheers - wolf 06:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - Wolf, are you willing to step up and monitor/fix his work, stand in stead for him? Peacemaker67 and I are getting tired of having to do so... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: I like to be helpful where I can, but I think J-Man would better benefit from a more experienced mentor. There are quite a few available right now at the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters list. Perhaps you or Peacemaker67 could take look and see if there's anyone there you recognize? (anyone with milhist experience would be a bonus). Perhaps one of you could message one of them, and make an intro, (or I could do it, or J-Man could do it himself) and get J-Man set up on a regular learning path. It couldn't hurt, and it might just turn J-Man into a mighty Wikipedian! (hopefully before Buckshot's blood pressure explodes...) Just a thought. Cheers - wolf 03:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 8th Battalion, The Rifles (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Do not use Facebook as a source. Do not use Twitter as a source.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, J-Man11! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 3rd Battalion, The Rifles (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Do not use Facebook as a source.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
These articles should not be stand-alone, but part of the regimental article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 8th Battalion, The Rifles (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at The Rifles instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This is just about part of the larger group. WP:BRANCH is kind of applicable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

NOT, ALMOST ALWAYS "ARMY RESERVE"

I am getting even more tired of having to babysit you because of the continual small easy things you get wrong. The Army Reserve (United Kingdom) only existed from 2011; before that was the Territorial Army, with a TAVR interlude in the 1960s, the Territorial Force in the first years of the 20th Century, and before that the Volunteer Force (generally). One of the things that make me despair of you being a quarter-useful editor is that you get the term wrong for the years in question, about 80% plus of the time. The Draft:1st Cornwall Rifle Volunteers that you were trying to write an article about were not [[Army Reserve (United Kingdom)|Territorial Army]]; they started out as Volunteers, then Territorial Force, then TA. Every one of those three forces has a separate article, had separate reasons for being, conditions of service, eligibility for overseas service (just about the most important condition) etc. AND YOU DON'T GET THE FORCE RIGHT!! EVERY one has a link, and, in line with WP:NOTBROKEN, needs to be directly linked to THE CORRECT FORCE.

BE MORE CAREFUL unless you want a further, strong recommendation from me to Peacemaker67 that you should be blocked. This is an *encyclopedia* - we are all not here to clean up your simple errors!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly didn't know that.. Thought the reserve were like 100th (Yeomanry) Regiment, RA and the TA was The Robin Hood Battalion. Stuff like that.. sorry I got it backwards, I even looked up the difference to understand it more.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
DO US ALL A *****NG FAVOUR, LOOK UP *ALL* THE RELEVANT ARTICLES BEFORE YOU WRITE ANOTHER WORD HERE. IT'S REALLY NOT HARD - THEY'VE MOSTLY GOT GOOD ARTICLES. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN, BEFORE YOU *THINK* OF TRYING TO EXPAND THE BRITISH ARMY ORBAT IN 1914, GO LOOK UP THE RELEVANT ARTICLES. AND ADD YOUR REFERENCES AS YOU GO!! Do not just copy out Richard Rinaldi 2008 or I will personally block you. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • J-Man... just a suggestion, but maybe take a day off from editing and then re-group. I'd hate to see you come this far only to get blocked. You may have noticed some discussion about mentoring above. I think this is a good idea for you. So perhaps take a short break to see if something can be arranged, so you can continue your work. Sound good? - wolf 03:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I've already asked someone about it.. As I feel this is starting to have a bias twist.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Good for you, I'm glad to hear that. And Sp33dyphil is a good choice, (and he has some milhist experience). Hopefully he will take you on, and help steer you in the right direction. You have a good attitude and good intentions, and you're workhorse when it comes to churning out content and creating new articles. You just need a guide to help you with your sourcing and perhaps your prose, and to help you avoid the other little mistakes you've made that even minor, still need to be fixed by someone. I think you could be a really good contributor. Good luck - wolf 03:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I chose him because he had a history of military history, so yes I believe so.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hope you hear back from him soon. Dont forget to check your email. Actually, you should check it now. Right. Now. Cheers - wolf 04:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Structure of the British Army in 1914

I have again rolled back your edits here in the last nine hours or so.

1. Every reference must have *EXACT* page numbers; "multiple" is simply not an adequate reference.
2. Every division or independent brigade within each command must have at least one reference.
3. I have told you several times not to make WP:OR comments in the middle of text. We copy over information, rephrasing and repackaging, from other sources. We do not opine. You are the last person who might be able to make an authoritative judgement over whether the Peshawar Division had an 'unusual' organisation. You do not display enough knowledge of British Army divisions to say so. Your articles are so bare-bones that the context is never explained; CEASE making such judgements forthwith. Should you feel that a structure merits comment, say something like 'X Division consisted of Y brigades, Z cavalry regiments, A independent infantry battalions, B pioneer battalions etc.' DO NOT make judgements such as 'unusual'. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Addendum; acting under WP:IAR, I have deleted your new sandbox RN order of battle. I am aghast at your continued ignorance of people telling you over and over to fix what you have, and you're continuing to create new pages!! FIX WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE STARTED!! Should you wish to create vague skeletons, set them up in a Word file, and think very carefully about when you bring them over here. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
[[5]] is it ok the way I did that? I'm trying to keep it simple and I've been trying to do more referencing as I go now.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Royal Marines ARE NOT PART of the British Army

Of all your edits, I have to say this takes the cake!! STOP BEING SO CARELESS!! SHOULD YOU WISH TO REMAIN HERE, KEEP SEPARATE ARMED INSTITUTIONS *SEPARATE*!! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I did suggest you take a short break from editing. At least until you can be paired with a mentor. If would suck if you were blocked before that could happen, no? jmho - wolf 02:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I have asked for a mentor, and I'm working on fixing things that are listed like the references and the names and seperate brigade fixes. J-Man11 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 8th Battalion, The Rifles (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Facebook still should not be used as a source. If this draft is resubmitted again with unreliable sources, it may be nominated for deletion.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • J-Man, seriously... you should stop submitting articles until you get hooked up with a mentor. This is the kind of stuff Buckshot and Peacemaker have been on you about. You don't want to get blocked, right? You should commit to working on the stuff BS06 and PM67 have advised you to work on, and/or take a step back and wait for your mentorship to start. This is just a friendly suggestion. Cheers - wolf 18:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I did those like a week or so ago. J-Man11 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"NATO reporting names"

Can you explain why you use this term for Signal Groups? What is the source? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You also need to find me a source referencing the names '13th Volunteer Signal Group,' '38th Volunteer Signal Regiment', or '32nd (Scottish) Volunteer Signal Regiment', or these unsourced names will be deleted within 48 hours. Fix that before you continue with the 1914 or 1939 orders of battle. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You told me back on 1st Signal Regiment to change to 1 Signal Regiment as the "Nato Reporting Name".. J-Man11 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Buckshot06 Where? J-Man11 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
At 12 and 13 Signal Groups.. where else? '13 Volunteer Signal Group', is only at one place!! You won't find it in Royal Corps of Signals: Unit Histories of the Corps (1920–2001) and its Antecedents..!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It was in there, I'll read it right from the book.. "12th Signal Group (V)" and "13th Signal Group (V)" J-Man11 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
EXACTLY!! DID YOU READ "13th VOLUNTEER SIGNAL GROUP"? CHECK THE BOOK, AND FIX THE TITLES, OR GET THE ARTICLES DELETED!! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what happening here anymore.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will spell it out to you simply in words of one syllable. 32 Signal Regiment in Scotland is not "32nd Volunteer Signal Regiment", and 13 Signal Group was never "13th Volunteer Signal Group". That was NEVER their titles. The titles were 32 (or 32nd, different sources use ordinals (32nd) or cardinals (32)) (Scottish) Signal Regiment (Volunteers).[6] Now this can be abbreviated 32 (Scotland) Signal Regiment (V), but the word 'Volunteers' is NOT 'Volunteer' and does not appear until the end of the title, separated by a bracket. NOT '32nd Volunteer Signal Regiment'.
Go though your Royal Signals articles and remove EVERY mention of 'XXth Volunteer Signal [anything].' That's not the title of the unit!! Then go and check through your Engineer Brigade articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok.. Thank you for explaining it, I'll take a look. J-Man11 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't move pages for this!! Just change the text. Article titles should be as simple as possible, so we can navigate around Wikipedia as easily as possible. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And remove the '12th Volunteer Signal Brigade' things you've got in various places!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I highly doubt I'll get them all but I'll try.. Also (might sound rude but I don't mean it that way) thanks for calming down and explaining it for me.. I'm super smart but not in simple things every now and then.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Let me concentrate your mind, then: I will rollback and delete EVERYTHING you edit until you've worked over, carefully, all your signal regiment, signal group, and signal brigade articles to remove every instance of "XXth Volunteer Signal" etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
For a start, go back and work over your 13 Sigs Group article until there's only one link per regiment listed, and take out all the 'XXth Volunteer Signal' stuff there!! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Equipment Listings

@User:Buckshot06I saw in the British Army 1989 article that the lists like ex 1st Battalion, Scots Guards (144 Warrior IFV etc..) should I do that for other units or just keep them as 1st Battalion, Scots Guards - Mechanized?? J-Man11 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither. The first option is unrealistic, because it gives the impression that every battalion had every vehicle specified on their TO&E. To give such a detailed list we'd need a specific reference saying that 1 D&D for example did have 144 Warrior, 17 FV432 repair vehicles, two command vehicles etc etc etc. Second option is misleading because no unit was ever designated "Mechanised" (note the British rather than American spelling). It's clearer and more accurate, when you can find a reference saying that a battalion had either 432s or Warriors, to list the name of the battalion and then the principal APC/IFV they were equipped with. Thus, to use your example *1st Battalion, Scots Guards (XX Barracks, Name of Town) (Warrior IFV). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, because I thought listing the equipment is kinda ugly. But I thought I would get your opinion.. thanks J-Man11 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Either (Air Support) or (United Kingdom), not both

Disambiguations are there to make clear the differences when the actual title doesn't. If the 12 Eng Bde was always 12 (AS) Eng Bde, that would be the only (AS) Eng Bde ever existing, so you would not need the (United Kingdom). But, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says the most recent title, and the brigade is now a group. Go back and move the article to 12 Engineer Group (United Kingdom), please. The U.S. Army had a huge number of Engineer Groups so it's good practice to disambiguate eg (United Kingdom) because we may eventually get articles for those formations.

Also, at the bottom, add, [[Category:Engineering units and formations]] and [[Category:Brigades of the British Army]]; if you want to stay around you have to learn about categories. Kindly please NOTE WELL this is a *brigade*, not a *regiment of the Royal Engineers* so it does NOT go in any Royal Engineers category; it could have lots of other corps in it, depending on circumstances. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do! J-Man11 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi J-Man11, thank you for your request to have me as your adopter. It's been a while since I've done some writing, but I'm happy to give you a bit of help on referencing and other aspects with regards to content creation. If there's any specific issue, please pop a question on my talk page. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sp33dyphil Sp33dyphilI just made this -->20th Regiment Royal Artillery. If you wouldn't mind checking it and letting me know what would be good to add / remove / change.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure that'll work. To WP:PING, try using {{u|Sp33dyphil}} to notify Sp33dyphil. FYI. Cheers - wolf 06:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It sent me a message (when I did it last night) saying that it sent him the mension.. But I can do both.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Really? Like a confirmation of a notification? I've never seen that before, but... ok. - wolf 01:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DON'T REVERT MY EDITS UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON, ALSO WP:REDLINK, AGAIN!!

HMS Greenwich (1915), as you would have seen if you'd visited HMS Greenwich, is the correct redlinked article for that destroyer tender. DO NOT REMOVE REDLINKS!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You've done the right thing here at 1st Tank Division, now let other people do this on the articles you start!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Aldershot Garrison info, without sources, inserted at wrong page

This edit was really ill-judged!! The material, IF IT HAD A PROPER SOURCE, belonged at THE CURRENT ORGANISATION, Aldershot Garrison, not a COMMAND THAT DISAPPEARED BEFORE WORLD WAR II!!

BUT Dormskirk COULD NOT SOURCE THIS. YOU INVENTED THE SOURCE. BE MORE CAREFUL. Peacemaker67, I'm tired of doing this, request an immediate block. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I’m pretty sure I referenced it.. Also, Aldershot command I thought was the Aldershot Garrison page so sorry about that.. J-Man11 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps before jumping straight to a block, Sp33dyphil should be consulted. He literally just agreed to mentor J-Man. Maybe ask J-Man to hold of on any further edits until he and Phil have a discussion and come up with mentorship plan. J-Man isn't a vandal and he isn't trying to deliberately disrupt any pages. A block shouldn't be necessary if J-Man agrees to hold off for a bit. - wolf 01:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1. I was about to say I will hold all my major edits until he reviews my stuff.~~!! J-Man11 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, in words of one syllable, if you wish to stay around here J-Man11, stay on talk pages for a while: stop editing articles, or drafts. I cannot in good conscience stop you editing your sandboxes. Go talk to Sp33dyphil. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Again like I just said. For my and (everyone's) sake I'm going to stop the major edits until Speedyphil checks my files. J-Man11 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

NATO Orbat

I've rolled this back. Don't use NATO Orbat 8 for additions nowadays; there are much better sources (Br Army 1945 on, Regiments.org etc) for the UK. Only usable as a guide. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember you saying MANY times that Regiments.org and Br Army Units 1945 on were un-reliable.. J-Man11 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleting your talkpage does not help you check these things!! I'll help you set up archiving your talkpages, if you like. No, Peacemaker67 would have been the one telling you that. But just do us all a favour: (a) get the list from whatever source; (b) run some searches for the first unit to verify that it was at that location at that time; if you find a WP:RELIABLE source, insert it (c) if you don't find a source, don't insert it (d) repeat for all other units. (signed) Buckshot06 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I would think that somewhere between 'a' and 'd' would be be checking with your mentor. How's that going anyway? Haven't seen much activity between you two on either of your talk pages. - wolf 20:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
He commented on the 20th Regiment Royal Artillery, and made a few changes..J-Man11 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Glad to hear that. Seems to the mentoring is off to a good start, thanks to Phil. Keep up the good work J-Man. - wolf 09:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Some initial comments

Hey, I'm going over the articles you've created, and there seems to be no issues with the naming. One thing though, how come the naming of British brigades/regiments is cardinal instead of ordinal? In addition, please be more precise with your use of references, so that the first reference of a long paragraph doesn't come at the end of it (eg 5th Battalion, Royal Scots and 1st Rifle Division NKVD). In fact, I think referencing is a major issue that could be first focused on. Articles like 1st Tank Division (Soviet Union) and single edits like this should have references throughout. If there aren't many, please add tags for citation. Also, what makes this a reliable source? Cheers, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my nose in regarding cardinals versus ordinals re BR. Am following WP:COMMONNAME per references to the individual units, and more and more are turning out to be cardinals. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
1. Can I know what Ordinal and Cardinal is? 2. So be more specific on page and the paragraph? I can try that certainly! 3. The niehorster site (I was told and looked into myself for it) is reliable because the person is a historian and uses a lot of reliable sources in addition to him being the army previously.. J-Man11 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Dude, Cardinal numbers (1/one, 2/two, 3/three) and Ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd) are right here in WP. Also see MOS:ORDINAL for how/when they're used. FYI - wolf 17:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I literally still don't know what it means, I see it that it's the difference between One and 1..J-Man11 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What? No. More like the difference between 1 (or One) and 1st. I believe what Phil was asking is why some units and articles are numbered one way and some the other, such as;

But also, some articles are internally inconsistent, such as;

and

That's a few examples of the inconsistencies that need sorting out. - wolf 19:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, for guidance on when to use numeric digits (eg: "1") and spelled numbers (eg: "One"), see MOS:NUMERAL. - wolf 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
oh ok well to answer his question I was told to do it that way because of NATO reporting names.J-Man11 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hm, well... I'll leave that to you and Phil and BS06 and PM67 to sort out. - wolf 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
For clarity, despite the wording I might have misleadingly used about 'NATO reporting names', most of the WP:RS for RE and R Sigs regiments use cardinals (28 Sig Regt) rather than ordinals (28th Sigs Regt). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Buckshot06:/J-Man; was there a time when UK military formations used all ordinals and have since switched to all cardinals, say during a reorg? Or is it just a mixture of various RS writers using their personal preferences, and/or mixing the styles used by other national militaries, eg: Commonwealth countries, Eupoeans, the US, etc., by error? Might have to confirm with an MoD primary source in this case... - wolf 05:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Official formal style for RE and R Sigs regiments - internal to the British Army - appears to be cardinals, which is why I've induced a slow changeover. Also with Royal Artillery; never seen "50th Missile Regiment RA", always, even in Beevor 'Inside the British Army', 50 Missile Regiment Royal Artillery. Thus this is being driven by a regiment-by-regiment bottom up re-examination of the sources. There is no date of changeover apparent. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Sp33dyphil (I'm not completely done with it) but can you check this. TBH I'm quite proud of it, but yet again it's not completed but I have a basic "Skeleton and Muscles" done.. J-Man11 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proper, formal, language you would read in Encyclopedia Britannica, NOT "ditched"

Do not use "ditched" in an encyclopedia article. Try 'removed', rescinded, withdrawn, anything but slang. Slang has no place in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never used the word ditched.. Not even in real life.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Well since you used it here I hope you now understand never to use such slang again. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The disambiguator is (United Kingdom) NOT (UK). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The tests at Maralinga did *not* involve activities at Christmas Island. The Christmas Island tests were Operation Grapple. Can you please copy out here *exactly* what your source said that associated the Maralinga tests with Christmas Island? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please also link the original source for the 1989 National Guard listing of units and formations. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I was literally working on that right now. J-Man11 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Reference your new Norwegian draft, please. From now on, if you create any sandbox drafts without references in the first series of edits, I will delete them out of hand, immediately. Referencing has to be done simultaneously with edits. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Look

Would someone mind looking at [This?] J-Man11 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:21 Signal Regiment Banner.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:21 Signal Regiment Banner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Squadrons

I was told not to make squadrons, but I feel that this is an exception: 42 (City of Manchester) Signal Squadron because I made it with the 3rd Lancashire Engineers background and linked there.. Can you give your opinion? J-Man11 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't

Mind

Block for six weeks

With some regret, I am about to block you for six weeks. I and others have tried over and over again to counsel you as to the proper references, article title conventions ("Volunteers" is *not* a country disambiguation that WP can use, as it could be any country's volunteers) and use of sources. You are continuing to create poorly written and poorly referenced articles (for example, copying out Allied Forces North Norway and Allied Forces South Norway, making mistakes, and from that creating Draft:1989 Norwegian Armed Forces Order of Battle, as the original author of the source articles complained ([7]), using references that cannot be considered reliable for encyclopedic purposes (FireandFury, a wargaming site) and to disregard warnings as to what units are and are not WP:NOTABLE (only independent squadrons, see immediately above). You're continuing to do these things despite being warned again and again, and, regrettably, the community of engaged editors is neither big enough nor engaged enough to monitor your edits closely enough to fix everything.

For context, the cleanup after the banned User:OJOM has hardly commenced in some cases, and may continue for years. I cannot allow you to continue creating such poor quality articles. Notifying User:Sp33dyphil, Noclador, BlueD954, Peacemaker67, and Dormskirk.

This block is intended to allow you some time to consider what you wish to do; be however fully aware, that if you resume your behaviour with only minor changes after six weeks, a indefinite block is likely to follow.

You may of course appeal in the normal fashion at this talkpage, for which I will leave your talkpage-editing right active. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I highly doubt it but.. can I ask that I'm able to work on the sandboxs? J-Man11 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
No. The only page you can edit is this talkpage, in order to appeal your block, should you wish. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Wow, this sucks. Its unfortunate that it came to this, but there were a lot of warnings and chances given, and it seems Buckshot06 reached the end of his tether here. I really hope this doesn't deter you from continuing to contribute, J-Man, as I believe (along with others) you have a great deal to offer this project, not the least of which is your enthusiasm and energy. Take the time to go over everything that has been posted here on your talk page -since the beginning- (yup, go thru the page history), and any related talk pages, as well as linked pages to relevant policies & guidelines, such as sources, citing, MOS:TITLE, and more.

Consult with your mentor, Sp33dyphil and (you'll have to do that here, by WP:PING'ing him or off-wiki if he agrees). What he says on this could be of importance as Buckshot06 may have consulted with him prior to blocking, since he is your mentor.

Important: when blocked, you should really only use your talk page to pursue getting unblocked (see WP:GAB). I would ask either Buckshot or Peacrmaker if you can use your sandboxes while blocked. But really, do some reading, and some thinking, reflect on where you went wrong (what got you blocked) and started crafting a message to post as part of your unblock request, that will convince an admin that unblocking you will not result in a repeat of the same problem or in any harm to the project in general. You're not a vandal. You're not an edit-warrior. You are actually a good guy trying to create content, but just having some problems in achieving that goal. Ensure you add that you have been recently paired with a mentor and you will be working more closely with him.

I'll wrap this up now. If you find it long, hopefully you also find it useful. Good luck J-Man. I'm sure you will be back editing soon. - wolf 03:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already created 3 more pages out of wikipedia ready with references and everything, so don't worry, I have A LOT more to contribute.. J-Man11 (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Block increased to indefinite

J-Man, given your comment post the previous block by Buckshot06,[8] I fear you probably do not have the intent or the competence to understand the mistakes you are committing. Given the mayhem on your talk page above, and your deliberate avoidance of the real issues, I'm increasing your block to indefinite. Once you have listed out that you clearly understand what the issues are that have led to the blocking, and convince us that you will not repeat the mistakes going forward (e.g., you could of your volition communicate to us your intent to not create new pages again, until you understand sourcing perfectly), any administrator may consider unblocking you. Thanks, Lourdes 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

With real regret, I endorse Lourdes's stance. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I said that I’m working on a few more posts for when I come back, what does that have to do with this? I said I have a lot more things to offer .. and you read that wrong? Also apparently this is a dictatorship where I’m required to say EXACLTY what I mean.. if I say I’m going to work more offline, doesn’t mean I’m going around anything.. I want to add a lot more because I have a lot more ideas, and I’ve already used a lot more of the sourcing that Speedyphil gave me, then next thing I know if I don’t mentioned it someone person I have no idea of blocks me..J-Man11 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Alright.. so I took a day off to chill, now as I was saying you mis-read what I said.. I said that I was working on a few more (2 more to be exact) with the new format and with the new references notes that Speedyphil gave me. Although I didn't mention I didn't think it was 100% important to write that. In addition to the changes (I swear I'm not lying I literally spent 2 hours doping this) I went back and looked at what was given to me to change ie; Catergories, footnotes, and references that are considered "not real" or "Identifing a bad source". So I was able to find a few new things like forcesnews, and the royal engineers journals etc. Instead of the Order of battle page etc. So to answer your question no.. I didn't disrespect what you said, I just didn't write it down.. J-Man11 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have read your statement. Spend six weeks, not several hours, "doping this" and come back to me. {{u|Buckshot06}} will always find me. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Still working on it but thoughts on this; [205 Field Hopsital WIP] I'm trying to follow what was told with the addition of the "reliable references" and more information at the top.. Any thoughts or help would be apreciated! 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Acknowledged. First and second, remove the (United KIngdom), because the (Scottish) makes it a unique unit name; second, remove the second sentence of the article, it belongs either at Royal Army Medical Corps or 2 Med Bde, because it applies to more than just the unit itself. Third, have a think and reword what you mean by "under war" into more comprehensible English. Some of the posts about your poor writing were uncomfortably close to the mark. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Didn’t think you would actually answer but ok, although shouldn't the all the RAMC (actually most) units have the (UK) after them? Yes I understand with the Scottish but what about say the Sunderland Field Ambulance or Eastern? Also I’m still working on that, you won’t believe me but I have the best every grammer in my English classes, it's just cause I type so fast. But thanks for the feedback I will make the changes.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(A) Anything that's a unique unit name does not have a (United Kingdom). Thus "903 (Sunderland) Field Ambulance," NOT "903 (Sunderland) Field Ambulance (United Kingdom)." (B) Spend some of that six weeks - three months practicing stopping after every sentence and *fixing* *your* *mistakes*. 'best every grammar' is NOT good grammar - it has a spelling mistake which destroys the meaning of the sentence!! 'best ever grammar' maybe? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I typed that on my phone sorry XD Yeah I meant I have the best grammer Also ok with the field ambulance, I guess that I would make sense.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

When you cannot even spell 'grammar' correctly, and your grammar is often faulty - like the lead-on phrase after the word grammer immediately above, it makes be wonder how much effort and time I should really invest in helping you further. Improve, please!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I have ADHD so I rush through a lot of things, therefore I spell things wrong when I'm typing. I have been working on it though. J-Man11 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal

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).

Coldstreamer20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Removal of indefinite for misunderstanding and did-communication

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:36, 19 March 2019 (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.

thumb

Trying again

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).

Coldstreamer20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. Alright so. the reason I was banned originally was because I was making too many articles and not citing them correctly, which I believe through my practice through FANDOM I've been able to solve and found that while reviewing my pages I actually do see that I didn't cite them properly or enough.. 2. The reason why I'm asking for this unblock (overall) is mostly not to create new articles infact I actually want to put that on a halt as I'm quite busy, but I also want to work on my older articles like the medical units and battalions to make more citations that actually support what I'm saying. This is because as I was making articles I didn't find two reliable pages which I've found that would help a lot. One of the other reasons for the ban was because (from what I read it as) I wasn't naming the pages correctly like: 201 (Northern) Field Hospital (Volunteers) instead of 201 (Northern) Field Hospital. So the problem was because (other titles also) I was adding (volunteers) and apparently (after reading the naming article) I wasn't supposed to do that as it was considered not a country and more of a title. So why am I going into such detail? Well. its mainly because I think I can contribute A LOT more to wikipedia (specifically for military stuff). I also feel that from learning from both FANDOM and my problems I'm able to find a medium. From also looking at what others have said it seems my "english isn't great", and I would conteract that saying my English is actually amazing, only that I rush. So, what is this coming to? Well I'm saying this because I was told to slow down with my editing and read over my articles. I believe that (as I said), if I slow down and watch what I do I think I would be able to make my english and articles actually sound and look better. There also to be some discrepancies with creating battalion wikis, which I've left from Wikipedia and only do on FANDOM. Although the battalions do seem to be OK if they are territorials or volunteers. Finally there was a good chunk of talk about not making "Squadron" pages, yet someone made the 42 (East Lancashire) Signal Regiment, pretty much the same thing so I'm confused, but also I understand not having the histories of the actual squadrons, but the regiments are ok. So if you have actually read this, thank you and sorry..

Decline reason:

Per Buckshot06's comments below. You may want to consider following the process outlined at WP:SECONDCHANCE, which allows administrators to review your ability to edit in line with Wikipedia's requirements more closely. Yunshui 雲水 21:31, 22 May 2019 (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.

@Buckshot06 I seriously hope this works cause now I really want to fix all this and come back.. Hopefully I will be able to and contribute majorly :) J-Man11 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate comment from @Lourdes before unblocking. GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping GoldenRing. While you can take an independent decision here based on your assessment, I'll suggest we take Buckshot's aye/nay once; they have invested so much time in this editor, and that's the reason the community has been saved till now. If they don't respond in a reasonable period, go ahead. Lourdes 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If I can add, @Buckshot06 is actually the one who has done the most with helping me.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. He should not be unblocked at this time; he still has not demonstrated he has understood, in his text above, the many and varied reasons why he did not meet standards. J-Man11 can send article drafts off-wiki to me, should he wish, and we'll keep the whole drama off-wiki until his standards have risen considerably. I can mount them if they reach the standard, with fulsome acknowledgement of his work. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask what you mean by the ones I didn't address? I feel I've fixed almost everything (in my opinion) and addressed it in the message. I feel that if you need proof: [Specialised Infantry Group] J-Man11 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Buckshot here. Lourdes 06:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
SIG: It's not a brigade, and the word 'brigade' should not be on the page whatsoever, the category in question would be 'Military Units and Fms of the British Army'; the material exactly spelling out what the SIG is and does (=if I understand correctly, training foreign armies) has not been copied over and attributed from the official site; allegiance= anything is not used on nationstate armed forces, only for nonstate groups, 'The battalions of the SIG will have the smallest battalions' is ridiculous; probably something like 'smallest structure', but needs details re this specific role, at least company sizes; and remove the term 'quick reaction' which might imply a rapid response *fighting* force. Need I go on?
Notwithstanding all that, if you fix all those issues, then send me the wikitext, I will consider it for upload, with fulsome acknowledgements of your authorship in several places. Do that 10 times successfully, and I may consider changing my recommendation on your block. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright so, because my life is so free atm I'll work on those. Also do you want me to email your the Wikitext or? J-Man11 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If you made it down here

Alright, so I've put four articles here all of which I think of the best ones I've made over at the Military FANDOM. I provided two units, one special unit, and one "person". Any thoughts for each one is much appreciated!J-Man11 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, again, you did not properly understand or follow what I said. I did *NOT* say just put them on this page, I said e-mail them to me; you have an e-mail address for me. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I read the "2nd Chance" and it said to do this. Also you didn't say that from what I recall you said "send it to me", then I asked should I e-mail and you didn't answer. But I'm email now.. J-Man11 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Message acknowledged. Do not expect a response in normal wiki-responsetime of a few days or hours; more like weeks. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh... lovely J-Man11 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

??Update??

@Buckshot06 I have another two articles ready if your interested?? J-Man11 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes (talk · contribs) Any idea what happened to Buckshot06? J-Man11 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to wait for him. There are other wikiprojects you can contribute to. My advice would be to go to these other projects, choose one that may interest you and show your sincerity for around 3 to 6 months. You would have a better chance of being unblocked then. Thanks (and please don't ping me again; this is the last piece of advice from my side). Lourdes 02:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You probably won't answer this, but how can I work on a wiki project if I can't edit anything?? J-Man11 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
e.g., try out Wikinews. You're blocked on the English Wikipedia; not other Wiki projects. Lourdes 03:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm right here J-Man11. But have more important things I am doing.. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright, well sorry It's just because I sent you like 3 messages, and I was expecting an answer because it's been 1 month since I sent them XD J-Man11 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 Any updates? 1 month later.. J-Man11 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@User:Buckshot06 Ok, so I waited two weeks for ya. Wondering if there is any progress? J-Man11 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Specialised Infantry Group

I have as of this date taken one of the talkpage drafts that J-Man11 created, made perhaps 20 separate edits to fix numerous inconsistencies with Milhist house style and proper referencing (J-Man11, - an automatic filter reminded me we no longer count the "Daily Mail" as a reliable source, so, note that for the future) and have created this article. Most of the credit for the research and organisation belongs to J-Man11. I will repeat this notice at WP:MILHIST. I hope that J-Man11 will carefully note what I changed, and act in accordance with such guidance in the future.

Carefully note that we link British infantry regiments, not battalions, thus Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment, *not* The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment and *not* 2nd Battalion, Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, three notes:

1. The group is now under the 6th (United Kingdom) Division as of like 2 weeks ago.. 2. Didn't know I couldn't use the Daily Mail, but I know that now.. 3. Don't know what Milhist stuff is, but will see.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoops yes of course re 6 Division; I'll change that; I didn't remember we couldn't use the Daily Mail, so no probs; please read the article carefully and see what changed from your initial draft. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but also, 3 RGR was formed back in March, and joined the group I think last month.. 3 RGR Formed J-Man11 (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MPS1992

Regarding Inkerman Barracks:

  • "was a former army barracks" would be better worded as "was an army barracks". (This is a very minor point.)
  • Why do you think wokingprison.blogspot.com and forum posts at greatwarforum.org are reliable sources? Which facts in the articles are you using these sources for?
  • "the barracks served as a main barracks for the infantry regiments assigned the divisions based in Aldershot and London District" -- there are two different problems with this. Specifically, the first part of it is clumsy and repetitive, and the second part of it has a grammatical error. See if you can improve it. The grammatical error is probably easier to fix, just one extra word needed. The other problem is more difficult, and might need re-framing the entire sentence.
  • You should take out the word "infamous". The article on the battle doesn't describe it as infamous, nor was it particularly more famous than any other large battle. When readers want to know more about the battle, they can just click the wikilink.
  • "was officially done converting to a barracks" this is informal/slang wording and needs fixing. See if you can find a way of re-framing the sentence. (Or this sentence and the one before it).
  • "and requisitioned St John's Memorial Hall" would be slightly better worded as "and St John's Memorial Hall was also requisitioned". (A very minor point.) Might also be worth explaining what and where this hall was.
  • "In September of 1947..." this sentence has one glaring grammatical mistake and some slightly clumsy wording. Fix the grammatical mistake at least.
  • "held their training organisations and national service depot". One does not hold a training organization or a depot in the same way that one holds a garden party. You need to re-frame the sentence, perhaps using the verb "based".
  • "living houses" -- I think you could get rid of "living"?
  • "The road that now runs through is named" -- this is slightly ungrammatical, it leads the reader to think "now runs though what?"

MPS1992 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot, but ill take a look J-Man11 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
More than ten problems in one short article is a lot, yes. MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
One note, "St Johns Memorial Hall was requisitioned by Canadian troops from local bases, such as

Inkerman Barracks - during World War II until `D' Day." Is what the RMP article says. So I'm not sure what your asking on that for the Hall.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To add a little more,

  • You would also want to wikilink Knaphill -- the reader needs to have a clearer idea of where this place is.
  • "except for a few small building which have been converted into houses" has a grammatical error in it.

MPS1992 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Little Note btw, the pictures maybe be different, as I noticed it showed a rock band instead of RMP members in an inspection.. So just disregard that ha ha.. J-Man11 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I am working from your initial test articles from edits 12:25 23 May and 12:32 23 May. I will finish all of those before doing anything else. Do yourself a favour and stop adding extra test drafts. I will also completely ignore any non-army ones, such as RN below. My advice? Fix Inkerman Barracks up completely, following the comments by MPS1992. You need to demonstrate that you're learning; you're not doing so at the moment. Please do not use stuff like "ha ha" when you're talking with editors who are trying to help you. Finally I've removed all your extra stuff below which merely makes the page difficult to navigate. Don't add new ones, work on 12:25 23 May and 12:32 23 May. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Good to know, but both of those articles have changed a bit since then.. Do you need me to Spoiler them here?J-Man11 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want the link for the updated version: 29th Signal Regiment J-Man11 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Leave 29 Signal Regt and concentrate on Inkerman Barracks for the moment, because you've got a range of helpful suggestions from MPS1992. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I'm currently doing that atm.. J-Man11 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Also I took into consideration what was said a while ago about trying other wikipedias or types of websites like it, and found the Simple Wikipedia, and I will try to move over and experiment there so I can see my articles in the type of style that Wikipedia normally has, which I personally prefer over the Wikia style. Simple Wikipedia J-Man11 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you keep reinserting this bizarre music group photo into the barracks article? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Because in Military Wiki, I called it demolition as the name for the picture, and here it is a band so it shows that instead.. J-Man11 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
So do not revert me after my next edit!! Upload the photo with whatever descriptive filename you wish, and change the filename/code to that!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
What does that mean? I did upload it with that and I haven't reverted anything here. I don't even know how.. J-Man11 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

*Sigh*, any updates yet? J-Man11 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@User:MPS1992, as per request; Inkerman Barracks (Updated) J-Man11 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Inkerman Barracks

Inkerman Barracks
Knaphill, Surrey, England
File:Inkerman Barracks.jpg
The Barracks in the 50s
TypeArmy Barracks
Site history
Built1859 (As Prison)
Built byHome Office
In use1854—1973
Demolished1973

Inkerman Barracks was an army barracks of the British Army based within Aldershot Garrison. For almost 20 years the barracks were the home of the Corps of Royal Military Police and their training services. The barracks were finally demolished in 1973 and converted to houses and apartments.[1][2][3]

History

In 1892, the West Woking Detention prison was converted to a barracks. These new barracks were built to house up to two full infantry battaions. The barracks were named Inkerman Barracks after the Battle of Inkerman in 1854 during the Crimean War. The first unit to be stationed there, in 1895, was the 2nd Battalion The Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment. After their move, a road down the road from the barracks was named "Queen's Road". By 1903, the 1st Battalion Princess Charlotte of Wales's Royal Berkshire Regiment moved in.[4] (See: #Units_Based)[4][5]

File:RMP 1953.jpg

Just before and during the run-up to Operation Overlord, multiple Canadian Army units were based at the barracks and St John's Memorial Hall was also requisitioned. By September 1947, the headquarters of the Corps of Royal Military Police moved to the barracks, and as a result was designated as the "Home of the Corps". Following the end of World War II, National Service was started and all men were required to take part. Following the implementation of this service, the RMP trained national servicemen there. National Servicemen and new recruits also passed out from there.[6][4][5][7][8]

Finally in the 1973, the barracks were demolished and converted to houses and apartments. Today, all that is left are a few small buildings. A road now runs through what was the centre of the barracks, and is name "Inkerman Road".[6][4][5][9]

Garrison

File:Demolition.jpg

Units based at the barracks included:[4][8]

References

  1. ^ "RMP World" Royal Military Police Association Website
  2. ^ "Military Barracks in Aldershot" Barracks in and around Aldershot, Hampshire Government Site.Archived from the Original on 21 December 2013.
  3. ^ Inkerman Barracks, Woking from Hampshire Government Website
  4. ^ a b c d e Regimental Headquarters Corps of Royal Military Police
  5. ^ a b c Inkerman Barracks and the Woking Detention Prison
  6. ^ a b "RMP World" Royal Military Police Association Website
  7. ^ “The National Service Experience.” National Army Museum, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/national-service-experience.
  8. ^ a b Changing Times
  9. ^ “The National Service Experience.” National Army Museum, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/national-service-experience

Sources

Questions

@User:Buckshot06, what are you thoughts on naming a page? As an example, I made a page, the unit starts as the 6th Cyclist Battalion The Suffolk Regiment but ends as the 58th (Suffolk) Medium Regiment Royal Artillery. So my question is, should I use the first title or the last? Btw I did use redirects also, but I'm just wondering what your verdict on the matter is.. If you need a reference: 6 SUFFOLKSJ-Man11 (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Go and read WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, and come back to me with any questions. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I read that, but doesn't really answer it. I guess what I gained it just keep the most used name that was around for the longest and use redirects? J-Man11 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you read the section that said "..When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used;"? Buckshot06 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see that part, but that was what I was assuming so thanks for clearing that up. J-Man11 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Focus on Inkerman Barracks

Yes, MPS1992, encouragement is probably useful. But understand this J-Man11: I want you to concentrate ONLY on Inkerman Barracks until EVERYTHING in that article is fixed. I will respond ONLY to queries about Inkerman Barracks. If you post here about ANYTHING that is not about Inkerman Barracks, I will stop helping you. Basically, ONE thing at a time; that is not "doing nothing", that is concentrating on learning and fixing your errors on ONE article, so you can proceed to more advanced lessons. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also grammatical point: "Stuff" is also never pluralised ("Stuffs"). It is always 'stuff' whether singular or plural. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@MPS1992: and @Buckshot06:; So.. I've re-read the entire article (Inkerman Barracks) and looked at it, and fixed some grammatical errors. Anything you see that I might have missed? (Also fixed the wording and added some national service information)J-Man11 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Well done, I saw you made a lot of changes. Unfortunately I will probably be away now for about a week, but I will review in detail after I get back. Please exercise extreme patience! :) MPS1992 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Also, if someone decides to unblock you before I get back (unlikely), then please work on exactly one Draft at a time, and seek approval for just that one Draft at a time, before creating new ones. MPS1992 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Well (hopefully) if I was unblocked, I would do the articles I have already and improve them, and then work on articles in drafts/sandboxs and try to get them approved. J-Man11 (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Back yet bud? J-Man11 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about this. The comments at the end of this page look rather final. Have you been using some other account or editing logged out or something? MPS1992 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any way to create an account so how would I? My ip was blocked and I only have one computer.. I have been working over at wikia lately though. J-Man11 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
A WP:SPI has determined that User:MHist01 was a sockpuppet of User:J-Man11. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what that is, I can't even create an account because my ip is blocked.. J-Man11 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:6 Regiment RLC

Hello, J-Man11. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "6 Regiment RLC".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Royal Scots and Cameronian Territorials

Hello, J-Man11. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Royal Scots and Cameronian Territorials".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 13:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • J-Man11, the only thing you're permitted to do on this page is to request an unblock or discuss why you were blocked. You have been using this page improperly for months now, and it must cease. I just reverted your latest edit because it was inappropriate. If you try to use this page again as a platform for editing by proxy, your access to this page will be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock attempt

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).

Coldstreamer20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well for what, almost a year now I've been blocked on here (wikipedia) and accused many times to creating other accounts, when this is impossible for me to do because my ip is blocked and I have no where else to access this from. I you need proof I can even take a screenshot for those who are curious. Anyway back to the point, after almost a year I've been editing over on military.wikia, which has been lots of fun because the editors over there can do what they so wish and not be mollycoddled by others trying to make themselves get a name. I feel, and I think it also has been seen on this page that my editing style has change dramatically and I have been finding better and better sources including regiments.org, britisharmyunitsfrom1945on.co.uk, FOIA acts, etc. So, one of the major issues I had on wikipedia was that, I believe the term was "useless edits and changes", which I don't personally agree with but it seems the more experienced wikians seem that, so I will believe them and I do kinda see what they mean by this. So, am I going to be un-banned probably not, but if I was it would definatley be a very exciting day because I would love to transfer over my other articles from the wikia and fix my old ones which by this point and just awful and boring. J-Man11 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:32, 24 November 2019 (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.

  • I'm responding to this request and the equivalent request at User talk:MHist01. The technical data proving the connection between these two accounts and ProudAmerican51 is very definitive. If you want to prove it wrong, you'll have to explain why it's just an innocent coincidence that you have all the same interests in common, that you're editing from the same computers on the same IP addresses minutes apart from each other, that you've all used at least three of the same open connections that are unrelated to your school, and that none of you have ever edited from anywhere distinct from the other accounts. And probably more importantly, that nearly all of the articles your sockpuppets have created/edited here are copies of articles you've worked on at Military Wikia, and that it's been demonstrated that you edited while logged out to evade scrutiny of your edits. These are all far too many coincidences to believe you didn't know what you were doing.
The advice that Regulya gave you here was very bad advice: they seem to be trying to make sure you get banned which you surely will if you keep it up. If you continue to create new accounts we will continue to block them and will remove any contributions you make while evading your block.
But, no matter what Regulya tries to tell you, we actually do value editors who want to contribute productively even if they're not perfect, and we want to help you overcome this setback. I'm sure you understand that English Wikipedia's standards are different from Military Wikia, and you already had at least a few editors above on this page trying to help you work through issues in your editing, even though you were blocked and they probably could not have been aware you were using your IP to evade that block. In my opinion the way they went about this was a mistake: if they thought you were a good candidate for mentorship then you should have been unblocked and allowed to make those edits yourself, with their feedback afterwards, rather than waiting for them to proxy your suggestions into the articles which no doubt at least contributed to your impatience. Not that that's an excuse for abusing multiple accounts, I'm just making a note of it.
Given that you have been demonstrating an effort to improve, and your record of contributions at Military Wikia, I think you're an excellent candiate for the standard offer. Please consider it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for actually telling me what was happening. I'll see what I can do because I would love to come back and add more. J-Man11 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive_2&oldid=1057379325"