Jump to content

User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Montenegrin National Army

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I appreciate your obvious effort to keep your comments civil (as you promised here). I also noticed that you continued to follow my edits to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, this time by renaming/deletion campaign of articles I recently created.

After your attempt to delete Skanderbeg (military unit) failed, you insisted on renaming (or "sensible disambiguation" as you put it) of another article I recently created (Montenegrin National Army). You explained your position: "there clearly is another unit with the exact same name." (diff) To support your position you also presented Thomas and Mikulan p. 23. When I insisted on quote you presented it (diff) and revealed that the name of the unit they described was National Army of Montenegro and Herzegovina which is clearly not "the exact same name" as Montenegrin National Army.

Please be so kind not to propose deletion/renaming of articles I recently created (especially if those articles are tagged with "under construction" tag) based on false arguments and source misinterpretation.

All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow your edits. I am a MH coordinator and reviewer, and I regularly check newly created articles that should be included in the MH WikiProject. You, for some unknown reason, fail to add the MH banner to any articles you create, even if they are clearly military unit articles and you add a whole range of other banners when you create the talk pages. I am merely doing MH housekeeping. When I am performing those tasks, and see an egregiously inappropriate title, I point it out and RM it if you fail to respond appropriately to reasonable questions. I regularly comment on MH RMs right across the scope of the MH WikiProject, as can be easily seen from my edit history. I will not discuss the Montenegrin National Army issue here, as this is not the place. I will continue to RM articles that you (and others) create if they have imprecise names. I'm afraid you are just going to have to get used to justifying your titles in front of the community if you can't be bothered coming up with an appropriate and precise one that meets WP policy and guidelines. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. You first proposed Sandžak Muslim militia (World War II) (diff)
  2. Then you proposed Sandžak Moslem militia (World War II) (diff)
  3. Then you proposed Muslim Ustaša militia (diff)
  4. And finally (?) you proposed ""Moslem Legion" (with some sort of disambiguation)" (diff)
It is obvious that you accused me for something you did. It is you who failed to justify the imprecise article titles you proposed, like in case of the mess you created at Moslem Militia. Please be so kind not to continue with this kind of behavior.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention of continuing article-related discussions here. I do not pursue you to your talk page, I would appreciate you staying off of mine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
My last comment was not article-related discussion. It was reply to your "imprecise names" unjustified accusation.
Per WP:OWNTALK the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. I noticed that you use articles' talkpages to complain about me and my conduct. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles. Please respect this guideline and stop using articles' talkpages to complain about me and my conduct. That way I will have no reason to write anything at your talkpage. Thank you in advance and all the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 03:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

ACMs

Thanks for asking, I believe the A-Class Medal with Swords for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Hn–Hz), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ha–Hm), and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) is not mentioned. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

 Military history service award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Two-Stripe award. During this period you undertook 5 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lovas killings

Hi! Thanks for the review and excellent pointers re development of the article. The difference really shows! Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all, my pleasure. I always enjoying reading these articles, especially the ones on events prior to my time there. In my opinion, the article has great potential for MILHIST A-Class. You could consider a peer review then put it up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Request at WP:REX

You don't want it? Zerotalk 11:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, emailed you. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Quick question re Italian source

Hey,

Considering your comments on MILHIST about utilizing Italian sources, I don't suppose you have came across Come Pedere la Pace e Vincere la Guerra during your travels? From what I can make out, it is an economic history dealing with Italian economy and industry during the war and the postwar period. Our mutual friend alleges, but will not provide additional information, that one of the historians labels the Italian invasion of France a tactical, strategic, and political success. Apparently on page 53.

I know it probably a long shot, since it appears to be outside of your field of interest, but I thought I would ask anyway. Not to worry if you cant help.

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Enigma. Sorry, my library doesn't extent that far. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Knew it was a long shot :) Thanks anyway. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Peacemaker67. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer)

FYI, I had to decline your proposed deletion of Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer) as it had been PRODed in the past, as such I have completed a procedural AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer), you may wish to add your own comments.--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WP Military History

Hi Peacemaker67,

I'd love to join your group. Hope you could help me further as well with my other articles.

Many thanks,

Judgedtwice (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

MILHIST A-Class Cross

I answered you on my talkpage. noclador (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For a start I took the original A-Class Medals and exchanged the blue crosses with red crosses. Below are the 1st class and 2nd class of the A-Class medals. Next: please let me know how to tweak them, what to change and also if you wish how a third class should look. cheers, noclador (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal
    Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal
  • Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal
    Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal
  • Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal
    Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal
  • Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal with Golden Oakleaves
    Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal with Golden Oakleaves
  • Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal 2nd Class
    Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal 2nd Class
  • Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal 2nd Class
    Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal 2nd Class
  • Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal 2nd Class
    Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal 2nd Class
  • Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal with Golden Oakleaves 2nd Class
    Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal with Golden Oakleaves 2nd Class
PS: I left a note at the original discussion to involve more people, noclador (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Let's see what the feedback is. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I quickly did a suggestion for a purple Grand Cross and added it to the main discussion thread. Please let me know what you think. cheers, noclador (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Liaison Squadron{{refn|group=lower-alpha|Aircraft types differ between Shores, Cull and Malizia (who indicate Fieseler Fi 156 liaison aircraft instead of the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3a fighters,{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki break

Hi, I decided to take a Wiki break for a few weeks. I hope to return late June. I would appreciate if you could look after the open reviews. If you have time, I started working on the Joachim Müncheberg article. Its not done yet but I believe it covers the key areas up to the Malta section. He had a brief stay in Yugoslavia, I thought you might be interested in that. I will continue to close the gaps when I return. Cheers and thanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help out if I can. Müncheberg was an interesting character, will have a look if I get a chance. Have a good break. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Jovan Naumovic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wrote that article on Serbian Wikipedia and i know name of the rank for that and any other officer of Royal Yugoslav Army. So don't revert. Snake bgd 09:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be the article without inline citations? He was an Armiski General, and the English or US equivalent is Lieutenant General. The VKJ did not have Corps, and that's effectively what he was in a Western sense, despite being an "Army commander", so the equivalent is LTGEN. That is also what the source says. I know a bit about international ranks myself. And use edit summaries. Not doing so is considered rude by many editors. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

These flags are ranks of the generals they are only 4 ranks in Royal Yugoslavian Army. Brigadier General, Divisional General, Army General and Field Marshal (Vojvoda in Serbian). Its French system of ranking. Snake bgd 18:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. My point still stands. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't leave me warning signs on Wikipedia i am longer here then you and i know the rules read first and ask someone before you make move and revert something. Snake bgd 23:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Listen chief, I created the article, based on reliable sources, you were the one that changed it, but you haven't sourced the disputed information. Actually, you obviously don't know the rules, because if you did we would be having that discussion on the article talk page, not here. You have not engaged in discussion on the talk page of the article in question, instead you come to my talk page and offer personal opinions that you haven't backed up with sources. I'm closing this thread, respond to my points on the article talk page. Disruptive behaviour merits warnings, otherwise when you get clobbered by an admin, you have cause to complain you weren't warned. And, you might like to consider pulling your head in and starting to use edit summaries to explain what edits you are making. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Operation Bora

Good work on the 4th and 7th armies!

I think perhaps Vladimir Dedijer should be part of the project. Could you add him if you have the time? Srnec (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! For sure. Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yugoslav monitor Vardar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Slightly offset map

Hi! I had a quick look at the June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina and the NDH 41 east map seemed a bit off in terms of placement of the toponyms on the map. I checked its alignment (adding coordinates for the Prevlaka Peninsula - it's easily identified on the map as the eastern cape on the entrance to the bay of Kotor) and found the map was slightly off to the north and west, i.e. the pins appear further to the southeast than they really should. Prevlaka's actual coordinates are 42.399167 N, 18.517778 E (see here) but a pin is displayed in a correct position only after they are set at 42.439167 N, 18.457778 E. If I got this correctly, the map is off by 0.04 degrees latitude and 0.06 degrees longitude - I'm aware this may sound as nitpicking, but the error is sufficient to cause a coastal location appear off-shore on the map. AFAIK the border coordinates of the {{Location map NDH 41 (east)}} should be tweaked accordingly and everything should fall into place.

There are actually two possible explanations to this: 1) the map is off by 0.04 deg latitude/0.06 del longitude or but its height and width matches info indicated in the template, or 2) the map is narrower in terms of latitude/longitude actually shown than indicated in the template.

I did not apply any changes to the map template since I noticed you have created it and I thought you might know more about the map. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tomobe03:, I reckon you're right, must have been my sausage fingers when I set it up. Given you know what the differences are, do you mind adjusting it? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
All done. The map was just offset (its size was ok). Checked using two prominent geographic features on the map - the Prevlaka Peninsula and the northern tip of the Lake Skadar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tom! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

re: Use of primary source in DM article

Thanks for reviewing. I've read the article on the use of primary sources, and found this: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources... Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It seems to me that my quoting was inside limits of acceptability. But, of course, I might be wrong on this. If you think otherwise, I'll gladly accept it, for you being more experienced on this.--Gorran (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a word of caution at this stage. Answers in an interrogation or trial can be questionable, unless accepted by the judicial authorities and mentioned in the summing up (for example). Just take care with using them, they are definitely not preferable to secondary sources, and there are plenty of good secondary sources like Tomasevich et al, that effectively say what von Weichs (or whoever that is) says about DM. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Gorran: Depends upon the source, where, what, and why you have used it. Primary sources are not forbidden, but if you have alternative non-primary source, you can use it instead. Sometimes it happens that one can remove the whole content that is based upon the primary source, but sometimes it is very hard, requires consensus. OccultZone (Talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker67 and @OccultZone:. I think I understand the policy on primary and secundary sources usage. But, hm... Oops!... I Did It Again :) . My logic is here: on this specific issue (i.e, whether DM in September 1944 ordered his troops to fight Germans or to work with them), secundary sources are vague or/and conflicting - and primary sources are clear, explicit, and - I think - safe to use. But, of course I may be wrong - both on safety of use, and on adding to the sense.--Gorran (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not about whether secondary sources are conflicting. These things are very rarely cut and dried. If they are conflicting, we contrast them, we don't go to primary sources (which can be unsafe). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Uprising in Montenegro

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous statements

The claim in the article 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) that "The division participated in the clearing of Partisans from the island of Korčula" is, although referenced, simply wrong. No part of that division took part in Unternehmen Herbstgewitter II. So I removed it. Is it ok?--Gorran (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Greens (Montenegrin federalists) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greens (Montenegrin federalists). Since you had some involvement with the Greens (Montenegrin federalists) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4th Army (Yugoslavia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 4th Army (Yugoslavia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work on 4th Army (Yugoslavia), 7th Army (Yugoslavia) and 1st Army Group (Yugoslavia). Keep up the awesome work. 23 editor (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, it is helping me get a good handle on all the various parts of the invasion, so hopefully will make getting Invasion of Yugoslavia easier to get up to scratch! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1st Army Group (Yugoslavia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slovene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

This is a note to let the main editors of 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 19, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 19, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Divisional insignia

The 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) was a German mountain infantry division of the Waffen-SS, the armed wing of the German Nazi Party that served alongside but was never formally part of the Wehrmacht during World War II. It was composed of German officers and Bosnian Muslim soldiers. Named Kama after a small dagger used by Balkan shepherds, it was one of the thirty-eight divisions fielded by the Waffen-SS during World War II. Formed on 19 June 1944, it was built around a cadre from the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) but did not reach its full strength and never saw action as a formation. Elements of the division fought briefly against Soviet forces in southern Hungary in early October 1944 alongside the 31st SS Volunteer Grenadier Division. They were soon disengaged from the front line in Hungary and had begun a move to the German puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, to join the 13th SS Division when the Bosnian Muslim soldiers of the Kama division mutinied on 17 October 1944. The cadre quickly regained control, but the mutiny resulted in the division being formally dissolved on 31 October 1944. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Category for WP Military

Today, I created my userpage. I added our project, but why it is not categorizing itself? OccultZone (Talk) 08:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day mate, having the WPMILHIST userbox on your page doesn't create a category. Do you mean Category:Wikipedian military people? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes please. OccultZone (Talk) 01:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
You can just add Category:Wikipedian military people to the bottom of your page. When you add it, just delete the first colon to make it an active category. We use the initial colon if we want to explain what category we are talking about without actually categorising the page you are editing (if that makes sense). I think Template:User military might also create the category, but I'm not sure. It's easier to just add the cat yourself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Re: Overarching categories for Yugoslavia (WWII)

That is very subtle, but it actually seems possible that this would make sense in categories... it looks like something to be done manually at any rate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt it will beyond the grasp of some, but I think it is worthwhile. The categorisation has been a shambles for some time. Thanks for all the work you've been doing on fixing the "Yugoslav Front" stuff. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Can't believe that you could expand this subject. Respect. OccultZone (Talk) 12:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I found it very interesting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

4th Army GA review

You may not have noticed, but I've started the review of this nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina

The article June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4th Army (Yugoslavia)

The article 4th Army (Yugoslavia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:4th Army (Yugoslavia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Writer's Barnstar
For placing second in the May 2014 Military history WikiProject contest with 41 points from seven entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

inappropriately added to a closed RM

Hello,

I noticed you reverted me twice today, until now. With the second revert you removed comment of another editor I added below closed discussion (diff). You justified your removal of the comment of another editor with "inappropriately added to a closed RM". Will you please be so kind to explain me what is appropriate place where I could add the comment of this editor?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor added a comment to a closed RM, against the notice that is part of the closure. If they had a problem with the move but missed the move discussion and wanted to make a point about it, creating a new section would be the appropriate way to do it. You should know that you don't add comments to closed RMs, it might make it appear that the RM was closed inappropriately, or that the views of all interested editor were not taken into account in the closure. We wouldn't want that, would we? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought that I added this comment below closed RM discussion. I will add their comment within new section. Thank you for your reply.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I added their comment within a new section. (diff). I think that if some editor used the wrong section to express their concerns about the new title of the article, it is better to move it to more appropriate place instead to remove it completely. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In the context of their other behaviour, I saw no issue with it, but I am happy for it to remain where it is now. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day

Hello there, Peacemaker67. If you are not to busy I would really appreciate if you would review the Edda Göring article. It was an unreadable article, but I completely transformed it. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I generally only review MILHIST articles, but I have done an informal review, a minor c/e, and have made some suggestions for improvements. Good luck with it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Occupied?

Hi, I think there is some kind of misunderstanding going on, and it is not entirely unlikely that it is on my part. Or perhaps you thought my edit lent support to not changing the title, whereas I think it is doesn't matter, and that adding "occupied" would be an improvement? See my support !vote walk victor falk talk 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victor, you may be right. My concern is that there was no discussion or consensus for a change of scope during the RM, yet some editors think the new title means they can now change the scope. Their motive for this is not clear to me. My view is there is more than enough content (the article is already over 7000 words) for an article just about the period of occupation. I saw your !vote, and thanks for clearing up your position. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You might find this interesting Talk:German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II#Survey, as a discussion of a WWII article involving the word "occupied" in the title, and scope disagreements. walk victor falk talk 02:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I see now that you were the one that made the remark about unclear arrangements during WWII. Quite right, and the Nazi predilection for byzantine bureaucracy is compounded by the fact that on wikipedia the "Vichy France" article, the proper scope of which is the free zone in 1940-42, covers many things that belong more in what people commonly call "German-occupied France". But that doesn't necessarily mean that things in the occupied zones or after 1942 should be verboten from mentioning there, as it remained officially in existence as France's government. These are the kind of nuances and overlapping that makes straightforwardly titling articles "Occupation of Yugoslavia" or "Occupation of France" problematic, if ones wants to give an accurate and non-bowdlerized account of events. walk victor falk talk 08:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and I find the dismissive approach of some, who want "out-of-the-box" consistent titling quite irritating. I know a fair bit about the occupation regime in Yugoslavia in WWII, and have written one FA on the Hungarian occupation (which was straightforward in comparison to others). Editors who don't contribute to writing the articles but vehemently criticise those that do piss me right off. Rant over. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks! Looking forward to working with you some more. I had a great time! MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 7th Army (Yugoslavia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 7th Army (Yugoslavia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Gday - not sure if you saw but I added my cmts to this review a couple of days ago - it all looks pretty good to me just a couple of points when you get a chance to have a look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Ac. I don't know what happened there, head up my proverbial probably. Thanks for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

816th Air (Strategic Aerospace) Division

The subordinate squadrons may have had a strategic mission, but were operationally tactical. I've changed it to "operational" for clarity, since you've made the confusion apparent.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

And

Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for <for noting the amgiguity>

Your GA nomination of 7th Army (Yugoslavia)

The article 7th Army (Yugoslavia) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:7th Army (Yugoslavia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German–Partisan negotiations

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German–Partisan negotiations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Possibly unfree File:Battle of Pljevlja monument.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle of Pljevlja monument.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. January (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Moving

I just saw the two leftovers, and cleaned up. Why would the GA nominations be screwed? The redirects will remain in place for the forseeable future since it's doubtful anyone will write articles about the Partisan armies right this instant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

4th Army (Yugoslavia) has been nominated for Did You Know

Your GA nomination of German–Partisan negotiations

The article German–Partisan negotiations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German–Partisan negotiations for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

E-mail re Somalia

Sent you this but have received no reply. Did you see it? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I haven't checked it. Will do. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Diviziski General

Oh, yes, I believe so. The apposition is constructed from the noun divizija, both in Croatian and in Serbian - this j does not come from a yat. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a slim chance that this word was different in the specific context of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but that I'm not aware of that peculiarity. Either way, the form is not going to jibe with today's readers, so even in such a case, an explanatory footnote would be preferred to just keeping it that way. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Peacemaker67. You have new messages at Joy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

just in case --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Congratulations!

 The WikiChevrons 
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Peacemaker67 for his fine efforts in the June 2014 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 44 points from 8 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WW2 images

Yes, the photos are great indeed. I have leave you a message on commons. Regards. --Mladifilozof (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings

Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.

This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive_9&oldid=1160875142"