User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 24

Removal of category from Wiki Page.
Good Afternoon, I understand your point the RCAF Station Port Albert was not a "Canadian Forces Base" in that it existed prior to the Canadian Forces being formed from the RCAF, Canadian Army and The RCN. But as the Canadian Forces is the organization the perpetrates the prior 3 entities and to prevent the creation of additional categories that are not what the average person would look for. I believe having a comprehensive list of "Category:Canadian Forces bases in Canada (closed)" or "Canadian Military Facilities - Former" is important. If you look in the "Category:Canadian Forces bases in Canada (closed)" it lists many former Canadian Military Facilities, from before and after the formation of the Canadian Forces. How do you think this should be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mech1949 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign Mech1949 (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Categories, first, should be *accurate*; real life can be complicated, and categories should reflect this. But there's a relatively simple answer - Milhist has been moving towards simply, in this case Category:Royal Canadian Air Force stations, and here, Category:Military installations established in 1940 and Category:Military installations closed in 1945 should be added. That avoids the recentist distinction between installations that can be closed and opened at any time. I'd also urge you to go for an 'installations' category rather than 'military airbases' because many air force bases often don't have a runway. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_4, now seven years ago, and the discussion in my archive 23 about it, which may explain the position more. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disestablished units and formations of the United States Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benjamin Moore ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Disestablished_units_and_formations_of_the_United_States_Navy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Disestablished_units_and_formations_of_the_United_States_Navy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Books & Bytes – Issue 29
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 29, June – July 2018  Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * New partners
 * Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
 * Wikimania
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

WT:SHIPS
Thanks for your reply over there. I've been trying to discuss this issue with one of the editors that seems set on the idea of PLAN using "CV" for some of their carriers. Perhaps you could take a look at the  and let me know what you think? Or maybe even post a comment or two and help resolve it? Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks & Cheers - the WOLF  child  10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Deletion of the article on muthukrishnan iyyappan
Dear Buckshot - this is with reference to your comment for deleting the article created by me, Hope you reconsider your recommendation. Territorial Army is inherently different from Regular Army. So, the achievement of this officer in Territorial Army is noteworthy. Please ask me if you have any specific questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maratawarrior (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:MILPEOPLE? From the standpoint of that guideline there is no difference whatsoever. Whether TA or Indian Regular Army, they are both covered by the guideline. If I may ask, which regiment did you serve in? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armed Forces of the Kyrgyz Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tokmak ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Armed_Forces_of_the_Kyrgyz_Republic check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Armed_Forces_of_the_Kyrgyz_Republic?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Structure of NATO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defence Planning Committee ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Structure_of_NATO check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Structure_of_NATO?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:WP Military History postings
Hi Buck I am somewhat surprised that you chose to post your concerns about me at Talk:WP Military History which was a bit of a name and shame exercise that you could have resolved by messaging me on my personal talk page. Please bear in mind I am dyslexic so I don't see words grammar structure the way you do and its a massive challenge for me at the best of times the initial web source I took for Commodore Algeria was at http://www.unithistories.com/units/british/mediterranean fleet where it was written Commodore, Algiers/Algeria I interpreted that as first Cdre Algiers later Algeria (so at the time I applied common naming convention). I thought that because the shore base HMS Hannibal was also listed as the shore base (shows up some navy lists) for the other naval officers in charge at other Algerian ports outside of Algiers and he was the the flag officer responsible for all embarkations as the senior CO responsible. Trying to put these articles together in a cohesive way is incredibly difficult and very time consuming when the sources I have to draw don't have all the information methodically referenced its all over the place with no clear structure that's all I am trying to do sorry for wasting your time rectifying my mistakes regards Navops.--Navops47 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gotten extremely frustrated with trying to get you to correct things any other way, which is why I publicly rebuked you on the Milhist talk page.
 * Wait until you've picked through all the sources when you do this sifting of information, and then pick the term that seems most reliably sourced. Yes, it does appear that this Commodore was the senior officer in Algeria, but the period source about him being mostly responsible for making sure convoys were turned around on time was the best one to go with.
 * If you've got any problems picking between the sources before taking a page live, by all means ask for help from someone - happy to give it to you, if you wish to come to me.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for the Second World War roughly, best source is the Navy List, for example, https://digital.nls.uk/british-military-lists/archive/93493690 - a page covering part of the Mediterranean Fleet July 1945. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Navy Command (Royal Navy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whale Island ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Navy_Command_%28Royal_Navy%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Navy_Command_%28Royal_Navy%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

re: J-Man11
Seems you have your answer... - wolf  03:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I posted comment to show I support your blocking decision and I don't believe it was too "harsh". Hopefully he will start talking and maybe we'll even gain a decent contributor out of this. Anyway, good call. Cheers - wolf  03:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018  French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
 * Library Card translation
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you help with unsourced additions
Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange animals
Hi Buckshot06,

Those rambunctious Unicorns of Tanna Tuva send you their greetings of the season, as expressed to W. B. Wilson.

Cheers Mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.166.140 (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) express their appreciation to the Leadership of Tannu Tuva for ensuring that the facist capitalist-loving Unicorns were exterminated. No - wait - there's another!! [Transcriber's note; while the NKVD have long been forgotten, libraries from Patagonia to Samarkand retain many references to the Unicorns of Tannu Tuva, though much hard work is required to actually see one in the wild]. Happy Christmas coming - trust IRL with Wikipedia far, far behind you is treating you well. My thoughts go out to all Americans and their divided politics ahead of November 6 : there is far more that unites you than divides you!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: if you're in the land of those plucky heroes under the White Crowned Eagle [full disclosure - your IP address], I hope you've already done your civic duty and voted, whichever way you decided to go.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Doing well, thank you, and I hope the same holds for you. Yes, American politics are a real prize these days :P; perhaps after a few years of demonstrative behavior, people will again see the wisdom of calmer discussion and acceptable compromises.  Best wishes for Christmas and New Year's -- Cheers! 83.20.33.125 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Flip me an e-mail, if you would, via emailthisuser; even if you're off-wiki, would be nice to stay vaguely in touch.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Seize Glory, Buckshot06.

Unfortunately Boleyn has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"This needs some tagging."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for Reviewing
Hi Buckshot06,

Thanks for reviewing article on Rowallan Division. Did you leave any feedback? I'm new to this so dont know where to look.

Best Reggie Davidson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggie Davidson (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments in the article. Take a look at your new talkpage for future discussions where people may leave messages there.. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

19 Light Brigade
I accept your revert. My contention was J-Man11 has an obsession in adding the ORBATs for 2007 to all British Army units. Sammartinlai (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:J-Man11 is back.
Netherlands Army Structure 1989 has just been created, I've G12 speedied it. Gavbadger (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Don't delete automatically his articles, unless as you guys found there are copyvios, because some elements may helpfully find their way into parts of future articles. I'll give J-Man11 three or four days, then indefinitely block him, probably.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again, they have just created 45th Regiment, Royal Artillery a clear copyvio from British Army Units From 1945 On. Gavbadger (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) and 27th Regiment, Royal Artillery British Army Units From 1945 On. Clear copyvio's. Gavbadger (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

29th Engineer Brigade
I hadn't realized you had made some edits to improve the article (you can see there's only about 2 or 3 minutes between our edits). At the time, there was only one source, that didn't even mention the subject, and a single, small paragraph of prose that said "There is basically there is no information available about the subject". The page should never have been published. I considered either CSD, move to draft or redirect. I chose the latter as the article linked under "notes" did list the subject. But, I'm glad you are able to save and improve the page. (Now if only you could save and improve the author ;-) Cheers - wolf  13:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He's communicating - we may be able to try!! (see below). Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

` ~

Regarding 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle
Just checking with you if 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle is also a copyright violation? Look at the reference.

Thanks Sammartinlai (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's actually a legal question. Scribd is free-copyright, though has been credibly accused of copyright violation in the past; the original source, available on microarmormayhem.com, does not claim copyright either at the beginning or the end of the document, though it exists in multiple versions.
 * Nevertheless, this is a weak source. Suggest a quick move to draft space - probably the best and easiest thing to do with all his new 1989 list articles, unless clearly sourced well.
 * You should also seek 's opinion always as regards 1989 lists. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will let you and more experienced editors tackle it like you did with the 1989 Netherlands Army entry.Sammartinlai (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

J-Man11
G'day Buckshot06. Just wanted to let you know that I managed to get a response from J-Man11 via email. Have provided some advice by that means, focussed on sources, copyvio and communication, will see what happens next. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He also has replied on Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire and Talk:2007 British Army order of battle but appears to be using Wikipedia as a mirror of his military FANDOM pages. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to both of you. Sammartinlai, do we have a location for his military fandom pages? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh no that would mean searching wikia which is way too much. :) But you should check out his edits today. Sammartinlai (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course - am tracking his edits day by day.. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Would like your view on List of British Army Regiments (1800)
Is it acceptable or shoud it go for an AfD?

Asking since you deal more with army historical stuff.

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me, I want to close my proposal for merger
here and here. I just want to close the merger.

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
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) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Eagle eyes
I never thought that Justyouraverageme was J-Man11 really, but he's blocked so alright.

Have a good weekend.

Sammartinlai (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Structure of the British Army
"Commander-in-Chief, UK Land Forces, General Sir Charles Huxtable

HQ: Wilton "

Doesn't this look awkward? I changed it to a prose-like line so I don't get the edit here. If you want a wiki-link for C-in-C Land Forces that's fine.

And as I mentioned, I assist Colin/Gulabin, who's work is widely citing on wikipedia military pages.

Best

Sammartinlai (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I was removing my comments
so I may have accidentally removed yours.

And while people make errors, telling them to stop is rude. Just a note on the error would do.

Sammartinlai (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You may have been removing your comments, but I am completely unable to figure out why you removed mine - that's impossible in this medium, without further elaboration. I was not sure you were aware of WP:TPOC, so I quoted the rule at you. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

95th Bombardment Wing (U.S. Army Air Forces)
Could you move this article to 95th Combat Bombardment Wing (over a redirect). That's the only designation the wing ever had and the use of the correct name removed the need for a disambiguating parenthetical. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for fixing this article up!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for future reference if needed
Hello Buckshot, do you remember User:OJOM you indef'd them back in February. Since your block they have been editing/rewording their talk page comments, which by it's self isn't really anything. (I have not check all changes since the block) The only logical reason I can think of for this is a future unblock request or maybe they think they can do something legally, anyway, today I noticed they are changing time stamps. I thought this would be important if any unblock request arises. Thank you for what you do, happy editing. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Fourth Fleet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Monroe ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/United_States_Fourth_Fleet check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/United_States_Fourth_Fleet?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

United States Fourth Fleet
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template after your citation. I have done so for the above article, and formatted the citation. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 773d Military Police Battalion


The article 773d Military Police Battalion has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable military police battalion. No sources in the article or in google. If this prod will be contested, AfD should be tried."

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 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 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. 1l2l3k (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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) 10:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No. 13 Service Flying Training School RCAF
Good morning, I was reviewing my watchlist this morning and found that an article on my list had been moved. I did some investigation and have as so far been unable to find any reference to substantiate that No. 13 Service Flying Training School that was established in RCAF Station St Hubert, Quebec then moved to RCAF Station North Battleford, Saskatchewan was a RAF flying training school. A rule of thumb according to F.J. Hatch in the book "Aerodrome of Democracy" is that most of the RAF schools that were established in or moved to Canada we given a No. in the 30's to differentiate them from their BCATP counterparts. All of the schools in Canada were merged into the BCATP in 1942. If you could, please provide citation to establish that this move was justified.Mech1949 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) I have a copy of Kostenuk and Griffin's squadron book, which has a section on BCATP in the appendix, and according to that No. 13 SFTS was RCAF. Kges1901 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also checked the Operational Record Books(ORB) for the unit and there is no reference to the RAF in No. 13 SFTS. This is unlike the ORB for No. 31 SFTS which was created from No.7 SFTS (RAF) which talks of the re-establishment of the school in Canada. Mech1949 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fantastic guys, great response. I moved this series of articles based upon List of Royal Air Force schools and, thus, the references listed there. Whatever they were, they were not 'XX SFTS BCATP', they were either RAF or RCAF. Based upon the data in List of Royal Air Force schools, I moved them from 'XX SFTS BCATP' to RAF. Both of you have access, clearly, to better references than me; they're clearly RCAF; can we please clarify whether they were part of No. 3 Training Command RCAF or RCAF Eastern Air Command? Would you Mech1949 also link the ORBs if they are online. Then we can get this entire series lined up with the right data. Cheers and many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the article cited about RCAF Eastern Air Command and there is nothing about No. 13 SFTS. All of the BCATP Schools fell under one of the 4 Training Commands. No. 13 SFTS should have fallen under No. 3 Training Command that was headquartered in Montreal. It is likely that when the school was moved to North Battleford, it would have shifted into the AOR for, likely No. 4 Training Command. From my reading the Operational Training Units were not a part of the BCATP and would have likely fallen within Eastern Air CommandMech1949 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thankyou yes I'm aware of all this. Can you point me to the ORBs? Can you add more references as to the above from deadtree sources (our principal problem) as the pages appear to have been created from a single inaccurate webpage? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laval ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Hastings_and_Prince_Edward_Regiment check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Hastings_and_Prince_Edward_Regiment?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange pipelink on 859th Bombardment Squadron
Not really that strange to pipelink Eighth Air Force to cover 8 AF prior to February 1944 or all of 8 AF in WW II. That's when 8 AF became USSTAF and VIII Bomber Command became 8 AF. In this case, it can be read to be proper either way, but there are a number of articles where the link should be added. (Even more where Ninth Air Force is needed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

J-Man11
You say you're engaging with him, but he's not just editing 77th Brigade (correctly if you say I and I won't argue to death with it) but take a look at his other editing which certainly isn't personal attacks. unless he says so himself, which really he tries to brush off in his own manner. Others have also cleaned up after him. The articles he created and survived AfD have been edited poorly or with unreliable sources.

Appreciate if you reply here (don't need to ping I can check) rather than considering it as an attack when others have also cleaned u after him and I also get snarky attacks.Sammartinlai (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not talking about anything I'm specially doing; rather the long thread on his talkpage. Whether we receive personal attacks here or not, the more professional and the more we stick to commenting on the substance and the technical issues, the better WP will be for everybody. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Temporal categories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_12#Category:Current_Brigades_of_the_British_Army Buckshot06 (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * OAWiki
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Move request
Can you move 65th Bombardment Squadron to 65th Special Operations Squadron. A new editor did this by cutting and pasting. I rolled back his edits. what he did was mostly correct, but done the wrong way to lose the history. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done!! Merry Christmas!! (s) Buckshot06

Help please
Hi Buckshot06, can you look at my article on Rowallan Division again please. I have made some changes including content from the Officer Commending and adding more links. Hopefully I can remove the too few links warning now - what do you think? Also regarding the too few inline citations warning the issue is that few people know about the existence of Rowallan Division and there is hardly any mention in online sources. Happy New Year! Reggie Davidson (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the links template; that's not your worry, apart from making sure there's a sentence or two at HMS Raleigh. Second question is very much your business - but we want to see *off* line sources, almost exclusively, not just online. Find some offline, "dead-tree", printed/published book sources and add them!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why was the "Naval Training Center Orlando" page DELETED?
Thousands and thousands of Navy personnel, like myself, who trained on the subject base want to know WHY you deleted the entire "Naval Training Center Orlando" page. Can you please tell me what specific claim of "copyright violation" was reported that entitled you to remove the ENTIRE page?!

I have reviewed the mirror of the former page content at IPFS (link) and find no credible claim of copyright violation. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819

Jimbo1836 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear, I would kindly draw your attention to User_talk:Bwmoll3, Contributor copyright investigations/20130819, and its attached ten other subpages. Briefly, as you will see looking at the 'Copyright concerns' section, Bwmoll3 copied enormous amounts of text from numerous physical hardcopy books into wikipedia. It is not easy to establish which sections were stolen, so large scale deletions have taken place. However, his focus was on the air force history of the installations - here, Orlando Air Force Base - so, depending upon which parts of the article, especially naval, you can substantiate, we may be able to bring back portions.

I hope this explains why the article was deleted. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military reserve forces of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Military_reserve_forces_of_France check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Military_reserve_forces_of_France?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Referring RAF Regiment Gunners to being "elite"
Hi Buckshot06,

Thank you for your feedback. As requested please refer to the url link below to back up the RAF Regiment Gunners who are one of the "elite" units. They do partake in specialist training. I hope this answers your query.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/force-protection/raf-regiment-gunner/

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmbusiness (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To keep the discussion together, I will answer at the Talk:RAF Regiment page. Thank you for engaging in the conversation and coming to my talkpage to provide the link. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Operation Linda Nchi
I've found a number of good academic sources analyzing Kenya's decision to launch this operation, and hope to improve this article in the coming weeks. I see you made a post recently on the causes of the war, and hope you'll have a chance to help me improve the article while I work on it. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Very happy to if you list all your new sources in Further Reading - for now - so that I can see them and potentially help. Due to the various biases of now-departed, blocked, the article is bent out of shape in places, and places far too high a reliance on uncritical acceptance of official rhetoric. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of U.S. Department of Defense code names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Fleet ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_code_names check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_code_names?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Query
G'day Buckshot06, how do you reckon J-Man11 is travelling? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm spending half my time repeating in loud red letters conventions he simply doesn't see and sails past. He continues to create barely referenced drafts for all manner of subjects, while trying to write about the British Army with a host of errors. I don't really want to babysit him. Reactivate the block, I'd say. In terms of the sentiment I excepted at the top of my userpage, he's just simply not able to contribute.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
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) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit to "Fleet Air Arm"
Greetings and felicitations. In this edit to the article "Fleet Air Arm" you add a reference name, "World's Air Forces 1989", but not the reference itself. Would you please be so kind as to repair this oversight? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice
- wolf  12:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ack yes *absolute* DUCK that's why I was so categorical about it!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 32, January – February 2019  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New and expanded partners
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

B-47 nonsense
Just in case you run across this nonsense boilerplate, which was inserted in articles about B-47 squadrons by a banned edit0r. I don't know if it's part of copyvio problems, but it certainly can be deleted as unsupported by a WP:RS. Since it's also false, I think deletion is appropriate.
 * "The squadron was activated again in 1958 as a result of Strategic Air Command phasing out the B-47, which required additional squadrons to be activated as part of the consolidation of Stratojet wings and the replacement of the B-47 by B-52 Stratofortresses. In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy directed that the phaseout of the B-47 be accelerated, and the squadron was inactivated on 1 January 1962 as part of the drawdown of the USAF B-47 force, with the aircraft being sent to AMARC storage at Davis-Monthan."

This appears in articles about fourth squadrons added to B-47 wings in 1958/1959 and inactivated in 1962 and is completely wrong. The fourth squadron addition was a result of B-47s standing up 1/3 of their force on their home bases instead of deploying to Reflex bases. (In fact, a small addition was made to the force as four 20 plane squadrons replaced three 25 plane squadrons). It doesn't even make sense to say squadrons were added as the force was reduced. The inactivations were not related to the drawdown of the B-47 force, but to the increase of the alert force to 1/2 of available planes. I've replaced this nonsense with a fairly standardizes replacement where I've come across it (including 968th Expeditionary Airborne Air Control Squadron). --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks ; I've seen the REFLEX-needed fourth squadron activation text, but not noticed 'fourth squadron activated b/c phase out of B-47'.. I'll keep an eye out. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

All set
Re: my request of 19 February: BlueD954 made the correction. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - thought I fixed that myself, importing the source from Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989, soon after you requested it? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies then—I must have misread the article history. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

705th Tactical Airlift Training Squadron
Because 705th Tactical Airlift Training Squadron exists as a redirect, I need someone to move 705th Tactical Airlift Squadron to thAT name, the most recent name of the unit. Even as the 705th TAS, the unit was a crew training unit and although it shares a couple of other reserve firsts with the 704th Fighter Squadron, its organization as the first reserve unit to train active duty aircrews is arguably its most distinguishing achievement. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)--Lineagegeek (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Air defence units and formations of the United States
I just ran across a category you created a few years back, Category:Air defence units and formations of the United States. Per ENGVAR, "defence" should be spelled "defense", the American English spelling. I don't do much with categories, so I'm not sure of the best way to correct it. Since you're an admin, I figured it would be easier to just contact you directly, as you probably have the tools to correct this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ; See Categories for discussion/Speedy ; take a few clicks around to read the nomination for the category I've just made, and to familarise yourself for future things you might wish to do.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Columbus Air Force Base
I see that you deleted the article Columbus Air Force Base on Feb 21 due to copyright violations, but I just looked at the deleted pages, and it appeared to be primarily from US government/public domain sources. Perhaps there was something going on that I did't see? Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Buckshot06; large-scale copyright violations by a blocked user; happy to respond to any further questions after you've reviewed my archive post on the same matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow..that's a lot of stuff. It looks like most of the effected articles were cleaned up, but a few were so bad they had to be deleted.  What would you think if I took the deleted content and put it in my user space, just so I could see what we have to work with, or do you think I should just start from square one?  --rogerd (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, NO. Thousands of articles remain completely un-addressed. We'd risk further copyvio *while laundering it* if I stuck the material in your userspace, so I'm afraid you will have to start from square one. (All heated remarks can be made at User talk:Bwmoll3). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

331st Rifle Division
Regarding your edit today in the Formation section of this RD. I use the sentence "Its basic order of battle was as follows:" in those frequent cases where I have the regimental designations from Sharp, but none of the other subunits (battalions, companies, etc.) This is to indicate that the OoB is incomplete; it is basic. As Kges1901 pointed out in his edit of your edit, "Its key regiments were:" implies there were further regiments, which there were not. I can't think of any other wording that makes these points as succinctly as my original wording. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would probably go for "its regiments were", but they're primarily your articles, and I'm certainly not going to argue about it if you feel strongly . Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I feel strongly about is having to make similar changes to 75+ other articles. :) And I still think it's important to make clear these OoBs are incomplete. Thanks for your prompt reply. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, it's *not clear whatsoever*. "Known units include" would be much better; I didn't realise the smaller subunits were not known - and I've been doing this kind of stuff for 10 years on this site!! Would suggest "known units include x y z, but smaller subunits remain unidentified". If it's a matter of changing 75 pages, I'll happy do 45-50 of them.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The smaller subunits are known, but it is just that Sharp (probably) didn't have enough space to list all of them. We do know all division subunits thanks to the Perechen (lists of units). The original files can be downloaded from soldat.ru.Kges1901 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I will happily help out adding all the Offices of the State Bank, the anti-tank companies, sapper companies, maintenance/support, whatever, if we divvy up (divide) the job clearly.. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sharp is uneven in this regard. He gives a very complete OoB for the 354th Rifle Division, for example. When I started on this work I was lifting the subunits from ruwiki until I was informed that's not kosher. But I'd be prepared to update all the pages I've worked on if it's a matter of providing more info, rather than just rephrasing something, and if the source mentions can provide it, I'll get on it. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. This is just the thing. Thanks once again, . What would you suggest as a cite from this document? It would have to be added to a page's Bibliography, and a ref to soldat.ru, I would guess. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

An example sfn-formatted reference could be * Soldat.ru does not need to be cited because it is just the web host for the files. There is also a searchable version of the lists here. Kges1901 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, . Wreck Smurfy (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Afghan Ministry of Defense
The official title of the Afghan Ministry of Defense is spelt in the American English format and thus it should be standardized on other wiki pages as well that mention the Ministry.

I’ll be reverting it back to the previous edit I made. Acemaster77 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Buckshot06/Special Control Service


A tag has been placed on User:Buckshot06/Special Control Service requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
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) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

344th Rifle Division
It seems to me that we should be able to remove the following from this article:

I've just added more info and another ref to this article, as I have done a few times in the past year. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolshoi spasiba. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, I thought it was spasiba bolshoi. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not according to my Berlitz Russian for Travellers, p. 10. Also, I believe a similar notation to the 344th's can now be removed from the 101st Rifle Division (Soviet Union). Could you also review the edits I've made to the 331st Rifle Division with regard to shtat info and order of battle. If this is what you're looking for I'll continue to made similar edits. I have not yet seen your breakdown of the various shtats on the table of organization and equipment page. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 28 Engineer Regiment (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/28_Engineer_Regiment_%28United_Kingdom%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/28_Engineer_Regiment_%28United_Kingdom%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Grammar and Spelling in your assisting/babysitting of J-Man11
I don't want to discuss want you and others seem to be working with @J-Man11 on his references and sources, but have you looked at his poor English grammar, spelling and sentence structure? I don't call myself an English teacher and also make typos now and then, but look at his casual sentences or phrases and sloppy mistakes; these all hardly classify as a history of any British military unit. Also, while I don't want to care about how he is helped with his references, he appears to be so desperate using even social media sites or the British military units as justified sources. If this is encyclopaedic and accepted, then I've never seen such standards before.

I really appreciate if you could reply here, not on my talk page and yes I'm still breaking.

BlueD954 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns. While many of your attempts to intercede did not really produce the best results, my concerns have grown in the last few weeks. Thankyou for leaving your note. (s) Buckshot06.
 * Well thank you for you answer. Are you going to let him create new articles with poor grammar and weak sentences then? BlueD954 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been working closely with Peacemaker67, and as he is the lead coordinator for Milhist I will not take unilateral action without his agreement. I am also talking to others about the issue, and have represented those views to PM67 (you will note the YGM template on his talkpage). Should you wish to have action taken in regard to J-Man11, I would advise you to leave notes on PM67's talk page. Those notes should be polite, avoiding heated words, contain exact details of what you're concerned about (phrased without being agitated), and be supported by exact links to edits of concern (diffs). Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J-Man11&action=edit&section=10 This is not heated eh? You can scream at him, I cannot? Excuses or passing the buck? Reply here and not my talk page when you can scream at him.BlueD954 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was losing my temper while trying to assist J-Man11; I was advising you to retain your temper while addressing the military editing community's most senior editor. Addressing more senior people it usually helps to be polite. There does exist a difference. Having consulted however, you may be interested to note my just-added advisory at J-Man11's talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

42 (City of Manchester) Signal Squadron
Hi, I can certainly have a go at this. I have already gathered some material on 3rd Lancashire Engineer Volunteers (1901 onwards), and there is some around for the signals company that was spun out from it to the Royal Signals in 1920, so I should be able to provide a page for the redirect to point to. Regards Rickfive (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin help to move 718th Bombardment Squadron
In 2015, 718th Bombardment Squadron was moved to 718th Intelligence Squadron in the mistaken belief that it was redesignated and reactivated. After I made a number of changes to the page, I discussed this issue on Talk:718th Intelligence Squadron. I have since confirmed with AFHRA that the online factsheet for the 718th Intelligence Squadron is accurate and the squadron was newly constituted in 2011. I've removed the former references in the article to the Intel unit, but now the article needs to be moved back to 718th Bombardment Squadron over the current redirect. 718th Intelligence Squadron should not redirect to the article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Popov


The article Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Popov has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

7 AA Brigade (Malta) and 7 Army Group Royal Artillery
You're right: 7 AA Brigade and 7 AGRA have no connection, at least during WWII. According to Rollo ('Guns and Gunners of Malta'), Routledge ('Anti-Aircraft Artillery 1914–55') and the war diaries listed in The National Archives (TNA) catalogue, 7 LAA Brigade was formed in Malta Command in January 1941 and disbanded in May 1944. According to the war diaries, 7 AGRA was formed in the Middle East in early 1943 and fought through Italy until 1945. Postwar it's a little more sketchy: 7 AA Bde was reformed in AA Command in 1947 (Routledge) but I have found no mention of it after its last unit was disbanded in 1948, and it had certainly gone by 1955 (Routledge). Routledge says that 7AGRA (AA) was a *new* formation in British Army of the Rhine from 1955; it appears to have been renamed 7 Artillery Brigade in 1960 (TNA documents). This is only slightly different from the statement in the current Wikipedia page on the the new 7 Air Defence Group, which cites Watson & Rinaldi on BAOR (a source that I don't have).

7 LAA Brigade on Malta is on my (long) 'to do' list of gaps in Wikipedia coverage. Rickfive (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of RAF Charmy Down
Hi. Could you tell me what process was followed on this deletion about 12 hours ago - all I can find now is the deletion log message "Implicated in largescale Bwmoll3 copyright violation". I watch this article, and normally I see warnings of impending deletion through edits to Talk or the article, but noticed none in advance in this case. This article had a reasonable level of citing, 12 cites according to google cache, so there has been varied editing over the years on this article. Complete deletion seems excessive to resolve a copyright problem in this case. All the sections other than "United States Army Air Forces use" seem to have a moderate level of citing, and I suspect just deleting the "United States Army Air Forces use" section (having only 2 cites) would resolve any copyright abuse, but without access to the History I cannot make a proper assessment. I'd like to bring back the parts of this article that do not have problems. Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_24#Why_was_the_%22Naval_Training_Center_Orlando%22_page_DELETED? for the Bwmoll3 background; I will happily bring back the parts without problems. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Headcorn Aerodrome
Re this edit. What has happened here? The entire history of the article appears to have been lost. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, deliberately. Bmwoll3 created massive, continuing copyright violations. See User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_24 for the Bwmoll3 background. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So what about the copyright attribution for those who edited the article in good faith? Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone who's interested can request access to the page history. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

CCI discussion
Please see Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions Mztourist (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advisory . I believe you are aware of my views, as perhaps best expressed at the earlier Milhist discussion by : "Cases like this are effectively unworkable. No-one will ever go through this number of articles, and when the copyright violations are from hard copy books it's hard to do the checking on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, this means that all the questionable changes this person added need to be removed."
 * You appear to discount to a considerable degree our legal obligation to avoid copyright violations on this site.
 * I would warmly encourage you to move the discussion to a more used forum board, perhaps Milhist or similar, because that particular page gets very few page views. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I of course read 's comments, but he is one user among many who commented on this issue. I am not at all "discount[ing] to a considerable degree our legal obligation to avoid copyright violations on this site." I merely want to ensure that WP copyright policy regarding deleting copyrighted material is followed; you claim to be doing that and I disagree with you. As to the forum, I am following the forum suggested by you on 13 May 2018 where you said: "Mztourist, should you wish to amend the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions en generale, for a process that involves 50+ open investigations and many more closed ones, you may find it more fruitful to engage on the CCI/Instructions talk page." If that is not the case, then please advise the forum where you will agree to be bound by consensus on this issue (as you clearly did not feel so bound by the outcome of the May 2018 discussion on MilHist) and I will move the discussion there.Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To take your points in order:
 * 1. Nick-D is not only among Milhist users, but has been a coordinator and was a coordinator at the time, I believe. Coordinators give guidance for this project, so I tend to accord their views higher weight.
 * 2. You have misunderstood my earlier advice on the matter; what you're trying to do is amend the overall instructions for all CCIs, because of your views on this CCI. Any more restrictive rules on presumptive deletion would not merely apply to Bwmoll3's 5000+ copyvios, but to others as well. If you wish to get the overall guidance/policy amended, you need to rephrase your arguments bearing in mind the situation for all the other open copyvios which involve massive numbers of pages.
 * 3. There was no particular 'outcome' that supported your views from the discussion now archived at Archive 145. You made your point, several times at length; several users, including Coordinators, emphasized how improbable it would be to assemble a number of volunteers to work through every page individually with reference to the published books where the copyvios originate; and no decision or other binding action was taken.
 * 4. This mass of copyright violations, over 5,500 pages, has been identified since 2013. No large-scale cleanup action has been taken to remove WP's legal liability on the matter. We remain in breech of U.S. copyright law. I am acting in full conformity with the guidelines to address this issue, as I've quoted to you, and have had my actions backed up by senior Milhist members. I intend to keep doing so unless there is a clear change in the rules. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree with you. As requested above, please advise what forum you will abide by and I will raise this issue there. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The page you've raised it at is a good place for CCI discussion. Happy to have it there. But, as I've explained, your argument will need to address the circumstances of the other large-scale CCIs if you want to discuss it at that forum. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It will apply equally to any other "presumptive deletions". Please revise your 06:30 comment on that Talk Page accordingly. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. (A) that is a summary of what I believed and said at the time, and should not be altered, as to do so would be to alter the meaning of the discussion, and thus the record, and (B) I was literally quoting extant policy. You are seemingly wanting to change that entire policy, and you may raise such proposals for discussion; until such proposals are debated and approved, that policy stands!! (C) that's what I believe the situation is, unless a large number of keen military copyright violation checkers are going to materialise overnight.
 * Second, again, you need to carefully check the circumstances of the other largescale CCIs, and fold their circumstances into your arguments, if you wish to argue your case at that page. Your arguments seem to be cover all of them, and need to address all of them should you desire your proposals be taken seriously. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Military Assistance Command, Vietnam and Embassy of the United States, Saigon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. You have not followed WP:BRD these pages had been stable for many years before you made your recent edits, I reverted your edits with an edit summary, you made your edits again and then opened a discussion on my Talk Page, rather than the subject pages. That is not following BRD, it is edit warring, please revert your edits and discuss on the Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (a) Have you heard of the phrase 'Don't template the regulars'? (b) Edit warring consists of multiple reverts, and 3RR is defined as three reverts within a 24 hour period. Two reverts on two pages would be better described as starting the BRD process. I'll happily make further comments at the Embassy talk page rather than your own TP. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its funny how you say 'Don't template the regulars' and then immediately explain to me what edit-warring and 3RR are. As you know, you don't need to breach 3RR to be in an edit war. You could have started the BRD process after I reverted your edits rather than you reverting me again, which is what prompted my edit warring warning. Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

747th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron
As I work my way through WW II AAF bombardment squadrons, I have reached the 747th. I will be working on it over the next couple of days, but I expect I will be asking for you assistance in moving it to 747th Bombardment Squadron over a redirect. I'll have to look at a couple of sources, but right now, I don't believe that this unit has ever had the expeditionary designation.

The page was created by Mr Moll under this title, not moved from its previous designation. The other squadrons of the 456th Bombardment Group were all converted to provisional status in 2002 and assigned to AMC, later changed to ACC, but the 747th was not included in the DAF letter directing the action. Another result of this letter personally offends me. Bureaucracy has dictated that the 745th and 746th Squadrons have now passed the 744th Squadron in decorations because they are listed higher up in the letter (solely because the 744th was a bomber squadron again in the 1960s), and were picked to be the rainbow expeditionary units at Al Udeid. Naturally, I deny the offense has any root in the fact that I served as a copilot in the 744th as a lieutenant. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your note Lineagegeek. Without being able to see a copy of the DAF 2002 letter, I cannot fully understand you. Is there a link / can you send me a copy? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I have checked all the sources and added a Google search and can find no evidence that the 747th was ever converted to expeditionary status.  No decorations, no campaign credit for GWOT, Iran or Iraq.  Mr. Moll made presumptions, and one of them appears to have been that all of the 456th's squadrons were converted to provisional status.  Based on the absence of WP:RS for its redesignation/activation I have boldly removed all references to the 747th EAS from the article and it is ready to be moved to 747th Bombardment Squadron over a redirect. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I think you'll probably be able to confirm that an incorrect decision was made by AF/CC or other when the 744th BS was superseded by the 34th BS (17th BW), though it was probably after you'd been posted. I will move the 747th EAS page -> BS. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
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) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Ali Air Base ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ali_Air_Base check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ali_Air_Base?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Operation New Dawn
 * People's Liberation Army Special Operations Forces ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Special_Operations_Forces check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Special_Operations_Forces?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Sea Dragon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 33, March – April 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em">
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ali Air Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation New Dawn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ali_Air_Base check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ali_Air_Base?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of U.S. Department of Defense code names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCK ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_code_names check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_code_names?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Camp Taji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraqi insurgency ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Camp_Taji check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Camp_Taji?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wojciech Waleczek
Hi. Could you please help me to move an userspace draft about an award-winning composer into article space? The draft is about Wojciech Waleczek—a succesful pianist from Poland whose numerous achievements deserve to be celebrated with his own Wikipedia page. He took 3rd prize at the Premio Mario Zanfi competition and was the absolute winner of the 4th Franz Liszt National Piano Competition—to name just a few of his accomplishments. Mr Waleczek already has his articles on German and Polish Wikipedia. Hope to hear back from you. Regards, AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think you need to take a read of WP:VANITY and, as regards the article, WP:CLOSEPHRASING in regard to http://www.waleczek.com/about-me/. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Camp Al-Saqr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation New Dawn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Camp_Al-Saqr check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Camp_Al-Saqr?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for two moves over redirects.

 * Recently discussed on the MilHist talk page 763d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron to 763d Bombardment Squadron on basis that no RS shows they are same unit.
 * Suggested in January with no opposition 865th Technical Training Squadron to 865th Bombardment Squadron on basis that target name is more notable than most recent name.
 * Having failed as a MilHist Coordinator because I saw a squirrel that I am still chasing, I have no interest in being an Admin. Do you happen to know if there is a specific permission I can apply for that would permit me to move articles over redirects? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - no, sorry. Start asking at WP:Q or use the "HelpMe" template. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 34, May – June 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * Partnerships
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
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) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

В. В. Kurasov listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect В. В. Kurasov. Since you had some involvement with the ''В. В. Kurasov'' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Fleet Joint Strategic Command (Russia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Severomorsk-3 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Northern_Fleet_Joint_Strategic_Command_%28Russia%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Northern_Fleet_Joint_Strategic_Command_%28Russia%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 3 Flying Training School RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Harris ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/No._3_Flying_Training_School_RAF check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/No._3_Flying_Training_School_RAF?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
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) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Title of Russian Airborne Troops
I've been thinking about moving Russian Airborne Troops to Russian Airborne Forces and eventually creating a separate article for the Soviet Airborne Forces. This can be done because two new books, Red Assault: Soviet Airborne Forces, 1930-1941 and David Campbell's forthcoming Osprey book Soviet Airborne Forces 1930–91 should be enough to expand the Soviet history of the VDV, along with Zaloga's Inside the Blue Berets and Glantz's History of the Soviet Airborne Forces. In addition, the titling of these four books, I think, establishes that the RS translation of voyska is forces. (Don't forget that all other articles on voyska are titled forces not troops, such as the Russian Ground Forces, Soviet Air Defence Forces, and Strategic Missile Forces) The titling of Russian Airborne Troops stems from the official translation on mil.ru, the Russian MoD is internally inconsistent in its English translation of the name of the VDV (see this search of press releases) Also, compare google books on Russian Airborne Forces and Russian Airborne Troops. What do you think about this proposed move? Kges1901 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely happy with that move; just keep expanding the current article, and when you get over 60kB +, split away.. !! Have you got Carey Schofield's VDV book, TRE, as well? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:J-Man11
Hi, do you have any views on the way forward here? J-Man11 seems to be posting links to wikia.org pages in the apparent belief that you are interested in what pages he is creating there and -- presumably? -- he thinks that you might agree to unblock him if pages he creates there are of sufficient quality.

I meanwhile am not that interested in wikia.org and can't unblock him anyway, but have been trying to encourage him to fix the existing material already posted on his User talk page here on English Wikipedia. (On which he's made some progress but not great progress.) However I'm uncertain if I should continue to push for him to do that if it's not what he should be doing or if it isn't going to help his prospects long-term anyway.

Does his posting wikia.org links on his talk page serve any useful purpose for you? Separately, does an unblock at some time in the future seem feasible if he makes better progress in fixing the existing material on his talk page? Perhaps in conjunction with an agreement to create no more than one page per week (even including Drafts) on English Wikipedia? Or something similar? MPS1992 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

644th Squadron
I thought I followed the procedures, but apparently not. Somehow, the talk pager for 644th Bomb Squadron got stuck at Talk:644th Strategic Missile Squadron, an older name of the unit. I can't change because Talk:644th Bomb Squadron is a redirect. Needs to be changed. Currently also makes the article appear as unassesssed.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Royal Navy Stations
Hello can you explain why you are changing royal navy stations into royal navy appointments the two things are completely separate, the station is the name of the geographical area of jurisdiction including formations allocated to it, dockyards, barracks, and other facilities within that area as confirmed by the Board Admiralty when corresponding with the admiral assigned to that station. The UK National Archives [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/royal-navy-operations-correspondence-1660-1914/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/6. Station and fleet records] lists them as stations first not the name of the appointment e.g Flag Officer Commander etc. You have done this or are doing this for most of the RN articles. the UKNA states Station records vary greatly in character and completeness but usually consist of: correspondence exchanged between the station and the Admiralty, other branches of the Royal Navy and ships. and find record series for individual stations and fleets. Not correspondence between individual Flag Officer or Commander. If the Board of Admiralty wanted to call them by the appointment first they would have done so when compiling their official records. to remind you
 * Admiralty: Africa Station(including Cape of Good Hope and West Coast of Africa Stations)
 * https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/East Indies Station
 * https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/Ireland Station
 * https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/ Mediterranean Station
 * https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Nore Station
 * https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/North America and West Indies Station

Without trawling through umpteen book, journal, university and news agency sources that use of the word Station we have:
 * https://www.usni.org/United States Naval Institute:the Royal Navy's North American Station
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/The Records of the Royal Navy's Pacific Station:The following guide seeks to define the area of the jurisdiction of the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific.
 * https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Cambridge University/naval-archives/dmiral George Ramsay, 12th Earl Dalhousie. Naval note-books, South America station
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/The Royal Navy was run by the Admiralty. The Admiralty staff controlled the Navy through various commands and stations - North and South Atlantic, China (Singapore), America and the West Indies and the East Indies Stations. Each had varying numbers of ships. There were also home commands, responsible for defending British waters,
 * https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/Shortly before these military operations, the Royal Navy’s North American Station had been transferred from Halifax to Bermuda
 * https://books.google.lk/South American and South African Stations
 * https://books.google./China Station: The British Military in the Middle Kingdom 1839-1997

Instead of just changing them (which is just lazy thing to do) why don't you simply create a separate page for the name of the appointment to that station instead altering reliably sourced articles, it is one of the reasons I have mainly stopped editing on WP and you are the only editor doing it. I am moving them back to the original name you can if you wish start creating separate articles for the appointments I am not creating additional work for my self.--Navops47 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Lecture me?
Did you not previously scream at J-Man11 in capital letters before making good friends with him and endorsing his 'best English' articles and comments? Try lecture yourself first please. And reply here. BlueD954 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have lost track, but I had not noticed Buckshot06 doing much -- or any -- endorsing of any such articles and comments. MPS1992 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Allied Forces Central Europe.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Allied Forces Central Europe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure 1952–1994


A tag has been placed on Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure 1952–1994 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure 1994–present


A tag has been placed on Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure 1994–present requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure


A tag has been placed on Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of task forces of the Royal Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multinational ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_task_forces_of_the_Royal_Navy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_task_forces_of_the_Royal_Navy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of U.S. Department of Defense code names ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_code_names check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_code_names?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo
 * Royal New Zealand Army Medical Corps ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Royal_New_Zealand_Army_Medical_Corps check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Royal_New_Zealand_Army_Medical_Corps?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to James Allen

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
G'day Buckshot06. I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts trying to help J-Man11 to be a productive editor. Far more than I could cope with, I can tell you. I only wish I had an ounce of your patience. Good on you for giving it a red-hot go, but some people just don't have what it takes to edit WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to think you are right and he wasn't going to improve no matter what we tried; anyway, once he started sockpuppeting, it moved beyond our hands.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 6 Regiment RLC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Reserve ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/6_Regiment_RLC check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/6_Regiment_RLC?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naval Air Warfare Center, Indianapolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hughes ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Naval_Air_Warfare_Center%2C_Indianapolis check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Naval_Air_Warfare_Center%2C_Indianapolis?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:HQ JFNZ MCC commanders list 2019.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:HQ JFNZ MCC commanders list 2019.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baltic Fleet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gusev ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Baltic_Fleet check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Baltic_Fleet?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ineffectual editing
Could an experienced editor, knowledgeable in military topics finally take a look at the edits of JMRAMOS0109? I've had it with his "valuable" contributions. It is clear that the less he is familiar with a subject, the more inclined he is to rewrite the wiki-articles on it. The great majority of his edits are pointless and cosmetic at best, editing for the sake of increasing the amounts of edits and others are literally harmful, changing facts with his own interpretations, Americanizing terms connected to other countries the way he feels like it. Just a small number of examples of his valuable contributions is changing Soviet air regiments to "air wings", commanders of military schools in Socialist states to "superintendents", disregarding the Soviet system of grading military education institutions of center/school - higher school - academy and "translating" it to the US system, changing the term higher school to "academy" and academy to "staff college", because he feels like it, changing the translation of ракетная бригада (which means surface-to-surface ballistic missile brigade) to rocket brigade, completely disregarding the fact that the Russian language does not make the distinction between rocket and missile, introducing non-existent formations like Black Sea Fleet Air Arm, to clarify things, that do not need clarification and disconnecting the meaning of the English translation from the original name of the institution, put in brackets. Red Banner Black Sea Fleet Air Arm ([in Russian]: Red Banner Black Sea Fleet Headquarters) is NOT a meaningful edit. I can go on with such examples all day long. It is painfully obvious, that he lacks any understanding about the things he is so eager to re-write. It is not just a question of stylistics. Anyone with some basic understanding of Soviet and Russian military subjects knows that the Russians tend to introduce small changes in the names of military formations and units to underline changes in functions and/or equipment. A recent example is how he changes the translation of дивизия противовоздушной обороны from Division of Air Defence to Air Defence Division, completely oblivious to the fact that this also changes the meaning. The two may look the same, but they are not. Противовоздушная дивизия (Air Defence Division) was used for classic AAA formations in the interwar years, WWII and the initial postwar period. When the Russians transitioned these formations from classic anti-aircraft guns to anti-aircraft missile systems, guided by radars, they also changed the names to дивизия противовоздушной обороны (Division of Air Defence), to underline the combination of missile air defence troops and radiotechnical troops. This is also true for the higher corps formations, which also added fighter aviation to the mix.

He does not even understand the difference between an armed service (Силы) and branch (Войска) and keeps changing Troops to Forces, just because he feels like it. Making such edits willy-nilly changes the whole meaning. Does the quality of the content of the wiki-articles important, or is it just a question of persistence and who is willing to make an edit after edit after edit, no matter his/her competence on the matter? You edit the articles about the Soviet and Russian Armed Forces often. You know people, who are knowledgeable on the matter. I struggle to understand how his lack of general understanding and his actions could pass under the radar for so long.B.Velikov (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I have been concerned about his actions for some time. And I have rolled them back on several occasions. Copy your post to WT:MILHIST, and I will back you up. But divisions of air defence etc will need referencing, and I have made the same mistake - see 1st Air Defence Division (Russia)!! But now we can fix that!! Buckshot06 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * consider yourself warned early!! Please consult with a more senior editor before changing Russian terminology, especially Russian military terminology. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers
many thanks for your kind words - much appreciated. Hope you have a great holiday as well!! Warm regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and thanks in return for your good wishes. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghana Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ghana_Armed_Forces check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ghana_Armed_Forces?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian military structure question
I hope you’ve been doing well – happy new year as well. I’ve been doing some research on Russian military structure and have noticed a distinction is made from services (like the Navy) and independent troops (like the Airborne Forces or Strategic Missile Forces), but I haven’t been able to find any sources that accurately describe the difference. I noticed you’ve done a lot of editing on Russian military articles in the past. Do you have any recommendations on good sources or could explain the difference? Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I'll explain my understanding of the concept, and some sources; then I can dig for the solid sources you need. IISS Military Balance is *not* good on this; they don't even *note* the difference. The vid - branches - used to be the Ground Forces (SV), the Navy (VMF), and the VVS (the Air Forces). Run G-translate on ru:Вид_вооружённых_сил. Meanwhile there were the rod - the separate services of lower status, Airborne Forces, Space Forces, and the (demoted-from-rod) RSVN, the Strategic Rocket Forces (now officially translated Strategic Missile Forces, though the Russian term hasn't changed). Note in that Russian wikipedia article there's a diagram at the top, with first-level branches, represented by the green, black, and blue boxes, and then a second-level separate armed service in pink.
 * Now the Space Forces have been amalgamated into the Aerospace Forces or some such, so there may be 3 x vid: SV, VMF, and Aerospace Forces, and 2 x rod: RSVN and Airborne Forces. Clear as mud? The best source would be the Soviet Military Encyclopedia; I'm not sure whether we can dig that up on the internet. What is instantly accessible is Suvorov (Rezhun) the defector's description, which is ~1985, but good enough for a working description . Note he describes the "The Airborne Forces constitute a separate arm of service, which is not part of the complement of any of the main Services." How's that for a start? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to explain this! I’ll see what I can do about finding a translated copy (if one does exist). It’s fascinating to me that there seems to be so little known on this aspect for a military that has been analyzed more than almost any other for the better part of 70 years. I appreciate it Buckshot! Garuda28 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the experts well understand this. Hordes of them in the United States (eg David Glantz). Also I've just realised just search the back issues of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies and you should find further discussion.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghana Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methuen ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ghana_Army check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ghana_Army?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Your addition to List of U.S. Department of Defense code names has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. ''Please be aware that a bot is watching for and reporting potential copyright violations. Please carefully check for the copyright status of your sources, and don't copy any material that is not in the public domain. PD material needs to be marked as such with the template.'''This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing'''. '' — Diannaa (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . My apologies - isn't RAND Corporation material PD-USGOV? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat: You need to inspect each source carefully and determine its copyright status . Have a look at it. This is the copyright notice: "© Copyright 2003 RAND Corporation. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND." — Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. Oops. In that case definitely my mistake. Apologies for having to take up your time with this - thanks for doing the grunt work of rollback etc on my behalf. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember the bot is watching! Please be super careful from here on out! — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

246th Field Artillery redirect
Is it OK with you if I move 246th Field Artillery (United States) (the redirect) to 246th Field Artillery Regiment? This will make it conform to about 95% of US Army field artillery regiment article titles. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rob, if you read the lineage carefully you will see, as I've just done, that it never got the final word 'Regiment'. Remained '246th Field Artillery.' Better to leave it at the designation it formally had, in line with MILUNIT. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing the word "regiment" from a regiment's designation is standard US Army practice when referring to a regiment. Take a look at other regiment lineages in the CMH lineage, and it's true for essentially all of them. Are you suggesting that all of the other US Army field artillery regiment articles be retitled? In any case, various discussions and MOS policies affirm that Wikipedia is not subject to standard US Army or US government terminology. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the *lineage*, please. The official lineages will invariably note the formation of a new numbered 'XXth Artillery', and then 'XXth Field Artillery'; and then, if it happened, include the fact that such and such XXth Field Artillery was redesignated XXth Field Artillery Regiment. You'll see on our article that on 1 June 1959, various units were consolidated to form the 246th Artillery. Then it became the 246th Fd Artillery 1 May 1972. Pg 1282 of McKenney, Vol. II backs all that up (linked at our article). You asked for my opinion? My opinion is to leave it exactly where it is now, in accordance with WP:MILMOS, because, in the words of the MILMOS, "The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature." The first case clearly applies here.
 * In my opinion, Wikipedia should conform to WP:References and established facts, not try to impose order where it does not exist, and, here, importantly, it doesn't matter if it doesn't exist. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll leave it then. Thanks for the thorough reply. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seventh Corps Area, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Crook, Fort Lincoln and Fort Des Moines ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Seventh_Corps_Area check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Seventh_Corps_Area?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * New Zealand Defence Force ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/New_Zealand_Defence_Force check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/New_Zealand_Defence_Force?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Commodore and Chief of Army
 * Ghana Armed Forces ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ghana_Armed_Forces check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ghana_Armed_Forces?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Vyacheslav Lebedev

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 380th Expeditionary Operations Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation New Dawn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/380th_Expeditionary_Operations_Group check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/380th_Expeditionary_Operations_Group?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Re: Somali Armed Forces
Yeah, Somalia's Central Bank, Ministry of Finance, World Bank and International Monetary Fund don't have clear and concise figures on gross domestic product (nominal and per capita), I can only really find vague estimates but the calculations would suggest Somalia's is around 4-5bn USD assuming the 67mil USD budget is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamveryshy22 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good - so we need to (a) only use GDP estimates if they're solid; and (b) not make our own defence expenditure estimates - only quote WP:RELIABLE sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Commander United Kingdom Strike Force
Sincere apologies for making a bit of a hash of the clean up of this article following the change of name. And thanks for adding back the material which should quite rightly be retained. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Massachusetts National Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scituate ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Massachusetts_National_Guard check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Massachusetts_National_Guard?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Camp Baharia
Hello,

Can you please delete the redirect Camp Baharia so i can move Dreamland (Fallujah, Iraq) there?

Also can you please delete the redirect Camp Fallujah so i can move MEK Compound there?

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , happy to help after you list them at WP:RMT to follow procedure. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, never heard of that before. Gavbadger (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't anticipate there's any problem whatsoever, but I will wait for 24 hours to see if there's anything. I'll move them then - please remind me if I have not done so. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Naval Facilities category changes
Please stop deleting "Category:Closed installations of the United States Navy" and adding non applicable ones to Naval Facility articles. All the ones on Wikipedia are closed and that category is where they are "collected" easily. You have also added categories a read of the articles and link to SOSUS in them should show to be odd to say the least. Naval Facilitys had nothing to do with "communications" beyond having them. Naval Facility Bermuda had nothing to do with Bermuda's military. Palmeira (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Gedo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gedo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gedo?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to El Wak
 * List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_fleets_and_major_commands_of_the_Royal_Navy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_fleets_and_major_commands_of_the_Royal_Navy?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Flying Squadron

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This may interest you
Katangese Gendarmerie has finally been created. What are your thoughts on how the article looks? Any suggestions on how to improve its quality? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military units and formations of Canadian air forces


A tag has been placed on Category:Military units and formations of Canadian air forces requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)