User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 1

Archive Note
Everything on Archive #1 is from 2017 to the end of 2018. J-Man11 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, J-Man11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Scots Guards etc
Hi - Please can you read WP:CITE on how to add material to wikipedia and how to cite it. Unfortunately the material you added was unsourced. Please do not add uncited material to wikipedia. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reading and Newcastle ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1st_Armoured_Infantry_Brigade_%28United_Kingdom%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1st_Armoured_Infantry_Brigade_%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) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Royal Gurkha Rifles
Hi - As previously requested, please can add citations to your edits. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * London Regiment (1993) ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/London_Regiment_%281993%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/London_Regiment_%281993%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to London Scottish
 * The Rifles ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Rifles check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Rifles?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Reading

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Hi - I am not sure why you persist in ignoring wikipedia's guidelines on adding citations. We do not want to spend all our time removing unsourced material! Sorry to go on about it but you have added an extensive amount of unsourced material to articles and it is really time consuming to remove it all. Also please have regard for WP:PROSE and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Articles should normally be written in flowing prose rather than list form. Including long lists of regimental sub-units down to company level seems to me like a directory. Please spend some time reading our guidelines. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I note that you have added unsourced material three times now to several articles including 42nd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). Please note that this could be deemed edit warring and you may be blocked from using wikipedia. Dormskirk (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Some things I do in school
6 Word "memoirs": He came and sat, I left

We saw each other, I looked back

It was only 2 hours long

By the time it was done

We couldn't see the forgotten people - I actually thought about this one because its about how someone like me can't see people who might not be 'there' but are 'there' in spirit or feelings.

He was here, but not around - Thinking about how you might be thinking or talking about someone in such detail, its as if they are there, but they really aern't

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Regiment (1993), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Scottish ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/London_Regiment_%281993%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/London_Regiment_%281993%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army Regional Forces, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull, West Midlands and Midlands ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/British_Army_Regional_Forces check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/British_Army_Regional_Forces?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of British Army Structure 2007


A tag has been placed on British Army Structure 2007, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve East German Army 1989
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating East German Army 1989!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Military history
 Hello ! Thank you for your contributions to military history-related articles.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors who are also working on military history topics, please take a look at the WikiProject Military history&mdash;we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please add your username here, and a project coordinator will soon be along to welcome you. If you're not sure about joining, why not sign up to receive our monthly newsletter, The Bugle? It is a great way to get a feel for the project. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

British Army Regional Forces
Why have you blanked the page? Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army 1989, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington, England ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/British_Army_1989 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/British_Army_1989?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

New pages
Hi, you've recently created pages such as British Army 1989, US National Guard 1989 and Swiss Army 1989. Some editors here are curious about the significance of this years and these organizations. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Thank you - wolf  10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve US Artillery Structure 1989
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Artillery Structure 1989!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Royal Marines 1989
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating Royal Marines 1989!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve US Engineer Corps Structure 1989
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Engineer Corps Structure 1989!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

US Army Europe Structure 1989 moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, US Army Europe Structure 1989, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability
G'day J-Man11, thanks for your contributions, particularly your creation of the various 1989 orders of battle. I think there is a general consensus that these "orders of battle" meet the Wikipedia criteria for having a stand-alone list, but they may need to be renamed to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to explain that it is very important that everything on Wikipedia is verifiable using reliable sources. Unfortunately you haven't yet added the sources for these lists, and it is really important that you do that as soon as possible, so that readers and other editors can check that the sources used are reliable and that the information contained in them is correct. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and isn't optional. You should be aware that editors may delete unsourced information from any article at any time, per WP:UNSOURCED. I strongly suggest you add citations to the lists you have already created and then do that as you go forward, to avoid deletion of your work. Information on how to add citations can be found here. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions about anything or would like some help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears this editor is so far unable or unwilling to communicate. They have edited since receiving multiple messages here on their talk page, and multiple pings from wt:milhist, and yet no response. Of the year-or-so they've been on WP, and of the 605 edits they've made so far, none have been talk page communications. fyi - wolf  02:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am aware. I thought I'd give them another chance to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia core policies and respond before considering whether the material needs to be deleted due to lack of sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He or she is creating duplicate pages without much or any references. Sammartinlai (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day J-Man11, I'm assuming you are reading these posts. If you refuse to provide sources for the articles/lists you are creating, they can't be verified, and may well be deleted, as is starting to happen. To avoid this, at a minimum you need to engage with the sources, providing them on the articles/lists you are creating. That way other editors can see whether they are reliable or not, and whether they can be verified. If you are using a wargaming website, which one editor has suggested, then it isn't going to be reliable, and you can assume the articles/lists will get deleted unless you or other editors find reliable sources for the information. If you are using a wargaming website, stop creating all these articles/lists now and seek reliable sources for the ones you've already created. If you would like help with how to provide sources, feel free to contact me on my talk page. I don't bite. Not communicating with other editors isn't doing you or your work any favours. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also suggest to J-Man11 that you check if articles/entries have been already created before creating new articles. Quite a number of your new articles are orphans which can simply be merged to entries like Structure of the British Army or Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army. And as others have noted above, please provide reliable sources and not just enter the list of ORBATS (many which I've corrected).Sammartinlai (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve US Army Pacific Structure 1989
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Army Pacific Structure 1989!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Royal Marines 1989
Hello, J-Man11,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Royal Marines 1989 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Royal Marines 1989.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There already exist this referenced entry Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989 so why create a Royal Marines entry? Sammartinlai (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi
Please add verifiable sources to your articles and do not create duplicates such as First Strike Brigade which will be created fom 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). Thank you.Sammartinlai (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of First Strike Brigade


The article First Strike Brigade has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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.

Hello,

I'm proposing to delete your entry First Strike Brigade because a) it is highly unreferenced b) it is an orphan c) there are already many currently related entries you could place your (unsourced) data on, namely:

Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army

Future of the British Army (Army 2020 Refine)

1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)

Thank you.

Sammartinlai (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Errors at USARPAC article
Kindly be more careful; this edit not only inserted a non-existent 'U.S. Army Korea' which has never existed - the actual formation is Eighth United States Army, but also very strangely added parts of United States Army South, in Central America, in a completely different army command, to the Army Pacific listing. Please do not make these mistake in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * J-Man11 may be confusing EUSAK with US Forces Korea, which is the joint service command. Kges1901 (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Communication
At some point, soon, it would be good if you would respond to some of the posts here on your talk page, or at some of the article/project talk pages you've been notified of, to at least acknowledge the concerns posted here, if not to address some of the comments personally addressed to you. You're editing mistakes are causing others to have to clean up after you. So far, your only talk page edits, anywhere, have been to delete notices previously posted here. It would be nice to know you're aware of the issues and concerns and will attempt to improve. Otherwise, WP:CIR becomes a concern. - wolf  21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Warning
I've been going over your edits, errors, non-response to all the talkpage requests from other editors, and blanking of their messages. As Dormskirk warned you last month, this can be deemed WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if you do not start communicating. Please therefore be warned that you have, at the most, two weeks to change your behaviour before I personally begin administrator action against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1995 British Army order of battle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1995 British Army order of battle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1995 British Army order of battle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't unblank your talk page
You can simply Archive your talk like I do. I and others note your articles but they vastly lack verifiable sources and don't conform to Wikipedia guidelines.

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:TPG, J-Man11 can remove messages, notices and warnings from their page. There are some exceptions, such as block notices, etc., and while archiving is preferred, blanking is generally allowed. There is an understanding, however, that if a user deletes a message or warning from their talk page, they are deemed to have read it, and cannot at a later point claim "they didn't know, because they didn't read it" as a defence.


 * But the blanking isn't the concern here, the refusal to communicate is. In light of all the problematic editing and work they have created for others, it's important that they respond to the posts here, especially from Buckshot06, to explain their actions, show that they understand the policies & guidelines involved, and will work towards improvement. It would be unfortunate if they ended up being indefinitely blocked, just for refusing to communicate, considering all the effort they've put in, misguided or otherwise. -  wolf  21:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * fine next time reply here.Sammartinlai (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply put, I accept your opinion and comments. Good day.Sammartinlai (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, is "unblank" a typo? Did you mean "blank"? Thanks - wolf  05:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated warning
I've been going over your edits, errors, non-response to all the talkpage requests from other editors, and blanking of their messages. I've also noted that you've just blanked my previous warning. As Dormskirk warned you last month, this can be deemed WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if you do not start communicating. This is a community, not just a space in which you can write anything without interacting. Please therefore be warned that you have, at the most, two weeks (about 13 days) to change your behaviour before I personally begin administrator action against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2 Regiment RLC


A tag has been placed on 2 Regiment RLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Gavbadger (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 Norwegian Air Force order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Norwegian Air Force order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace and submit to WP:AFC when the issues are addressed. Thanks for starting this, it's just not quite ready for the mainspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 United States Army Pacific order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 United States Army Pacific order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for two issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 US Artillery order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 US Artillery order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in the draftspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 US Engineer Corps order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 US Engineer Corps order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sammartinlai (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, it was created by you as British Army Regional Forces but I renamed it. Sammartinlai (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Royal Air Force Structure 2020 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Royal Air Force Structure 2020 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Royal Air Force Structure 2020 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Communication is required
Take this is as a formal warning, you can't just go on creating pages which are in conflict with advise tendered to you without even so much as responding, much less refuting the advise. Almost all of your page creations are unsourced, do not have lede and are in all probability, non-notable. Unless you address these concerns in one way or the other, you would probably be blocked indefinitely. People have ever so kindly tried to start a conversation with you, but, your response—or lack thereof—has always been the same. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and hence, communication is deemed utterly necessary on it. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 2007 British Army order of battle
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;2007 British Army order of battle&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Block for two weeks
Following repeated warnings by myself and other editors, I have now blocked you for two weeks.

Your articles are poorly-introduced, unreferenced lists without context, and you have totally refused to communicate (Communication is required) in order to improve them as part of this site's collaborative editing process. You MUST COMMUNICATE or you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked in due course.

You may appeal this block on this talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 Swiss Air Force order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Swiss Air Force order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (1989 US Marines order of battle) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating 1989 US Marines order of battle, J-Man11!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Please work on this in draftspace."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 Irish Army order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Irish Army order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please look at your 'User contributions' on the left-hand side of your page. All your unreferenced creations have now been moved to draftspace and can be worked on there. If you need any help, please ask me or at the WP:TEAHOUSE or see Help:Referencing for beginners.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

1989 Norwegian Army order of battle
Re: Draft:1989 Norwegian Army order of battle seems to be a superfluous/duplicate work of the articles Allied Forces North Norway and Allied Forces South Norway. Regards, noclador (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Some things I've done:

Structures
[|British Army 2020]

Order of Battles
[|British Army Regiments 1995]

Others
[||British Army Yeomanry / Militia Units by Country]

Nomination of 1989 Swiss Army order of battle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1989 Swiss Army order of battle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Sammartinlai (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Block for two weeks
Following repeated warnings by myself and other editors, I have now blocked you for two weeks.

Your articles are poorly-introduced, unreferenced lists without context, and you have totally refused to communicate (Communication is required) in order to improve them as part of this site's collaborative editing process. You MUST COMMUNICATE or you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked in due course.

You may appeal this block on this talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI; the block notice placed here by must remain on the page during the block. And speaking of which... were you planning to appealling your block? (since your editing your talk page and that's what your supposed to be using your talk page for while blocked). Just sayin'... -  wolf  04:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Netherlands Army Structure 1989


A tag has been placed on Netherlands Army Structure 1989 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.scribd.com/doc/37695/NATO-Order-of-Battle-1989. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Gavbadger (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources and communication
As you have just discovered, if you didn't realise it already, you cannot just copy material from a source into Wikipedia, as that is a copyright violation. Also, that source is a WP:SPS and is therefore not reliable. It cannot therefore be used. If you are interested in actually contributing to Wikipedia, it must be done within our policies, especially verifiability. You need to start listening to the advice you are being given by experienced editors, familiarise yourself with our policies, and start communicating, or you will likely get blocks of increasing length. Our patience isn't limitless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You have an obsession
in adding 2007 Orbats and 1989 Orbats, the former which is not really needed for uniit articles--just current structure/formation will do or a brief sourced summary of what the unit was like post 1945. In any case, you rely on a single-source or untrustworthy/unreliable Orders or Battle as your references and use those to justify your 2007 ORBATs for various units. This must stop. At least enter in talk pages why you think it is worthy to add 2007 orbats. Or as I mentioned, do not add them wantonly.

As for the 1989, @Noclador and other users like myself have been improving yoru 1989 British Army structure, out from using just the surce Watson. Perhaps you could focus on that instead.

Thanks.

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 2007 British Army order of battle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2007 British Army order of battle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Block warning
Unless you start communicating on talk pages, you will be blocked within three to four days, indefinitely, for disruptive editing. Communication is not optional here. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * J-Man, you know he means it mate. Based on all your editing so far, there appears to be no reason for you to be unable to post simple talk page posts here, in some degree of English. Or post in your native language if you're ESL and we'll translate. Even that would be better than nothing. Why put in all the effort you have so far, only to be indef'd for such a silly and easily avoidable reason? If (more like when) you get blocked, you can't say you weren't warned and you cannot edit with another account, not even as an unregisterer IP user. You would be finished here. So just start talking, it's an important part of this project. FYI - wolf 07:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Artillery Regiments
Template:Royal Artillery Regiments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sammartinlai (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 27th Regiment, Royal Artillery


A tag has been placed on 27th Regiment, Royal Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/27th-regiment-ra.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Gavbadger (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 45th Regiment, Royal Artillery


A tag has been placed on 45th Regiment, Royal Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/45th-regiment-ra.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Gavbadger (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply to 2007 British Army order of battle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Merger_proposal

But it doesn't seem to address either nomination or a merger or a deletion or why you believe 2007 is such an important year to add to all the British Army unit pages/entries.

I post this here so other users can also comment.

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fandom is not Wikipedia
You cannot just copy and paste your FANDOM articles. FANDOM is for trivial usage. Wikipedia is for verifiable content. Please read What Wikipedia is not.

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth is FANDOM? Is this Wikia? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * yep, they apparently rebranded Wikia. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See his reply [] here and originally, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militia_and_Yeomanry_of_the_British_Empire&action=history Sammartinlai (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

'' Note: Please indent your posts as well. Thank you'' - wolf  16:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

2007 Orbats on British Army pages
Please refrain from constantly adding a 2007 Orbat to British Army unit pages. Already there's a AfD regarding your entry/page 2007 British Army order of battle on Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle questioning the significance of a full ORBAT/Structure for 2007. You should provide a response on that AfD why the article must be keep. Your constant adding of the 2007 (and sometimes 1989 Orbat) to unit pages need to be justified, well sourced (don't just use archive pages and claim it as your own work), and please, do not copy over from FANDOM or Wikia sites.

Thank You. Appreciate if you could reply here first before adding 2007 ORBATs/Structures to pages.

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 143rd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington, England ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/143rd_Infantry_Brigade_%28United_Kingdom%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/143rd_Infantry_Brigade_%28United_Kingdom%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of British Army Regiments (1800) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of British Army Regiments (1800) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of British Army Regiments (1800) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Incommunicado again?
- it has become quite clear that J-Man here is following these talk pages (both here and on related articles), is fully capable of replying (in English) and their recent reply was not an intention to enagage with other editors and discuss their problematic editing, but was simply to try and stave off the pending indefinite block. They are still editing daily, creating more and more new pages that are not ready for article space and and at the same time, refusing to respond to any requests for comment or questions posed to them on any talk page. They've got poor Sam pulling the hair out of his head and if something does't change soon, he's gonna be bald. - wolf  15:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, while your articles might have met the start standard around here back in 2005-07, things have moved on, a lot, and a much higher standard is now expected. You cannot simply transfer your work elsewhere into here. You need to start communicating in detail in response to all concerns raised, within 48 hours; otherwise by the 96-hour mark I will block you indefinitely. After that point, much of your work here may disappear for ever, depending on community views. Please start communicating and working with others collaboratively. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So.. what do I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, DO NOT create any more pages until further notice. Secondly, explain why you think 2007 is a year that we need order of battle articles. Thirdly, engage on the deletion pages for the articles you have created, explaining where you got the information from and acknowledging where those sources are unreliable according to Wikipedia's standards. That would be a good start, and we can see where we go from there. If you create another article after I have posted this message, I will block you myself. Competency is required on Wikipedia, and your editing is tendentious and disruptive to Wikipedia, and this editing behaviour has to stop. Right now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Ok? Can I still edit them?
 * 2. 2007 was the year where the british army had the last major cuts before 2010 (Army 2020)
 * 3. I will try for that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about trying to indent and sign your posts? That would be good... - wolf  03:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've re-added the 'welcome' template to the top of this page. Keep it handy and read through all the links. It has lots of useful info. - wolf  03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Yes, you can edit them, but you must use reliable sources, not stuff you came up with yourself, or material copied from fanboi websites or self-published documents. You need official publications by the British Army, reliable newspaper articles, good-quality published books. Also please sign all your posts with four tildes, like this ~ so that other editors can see it is you commenting and when you commented. So you are saying the British Army OOB for 2007 is important because of what cuts exactly? What was their name and what source are you using for those cuts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK,, I have run out of patience. I specifically told you to not create any more pages until further notice, and you have just created two new pages on artillery regiments with dubious sourcing. You are just creating poorly sourced articles for others to have to deal with, and you appear to have not received the message about reliable sources. Competency is required on Wikipedia. I am therefore blocking you for four weeks. When that block expires, you are not to create any more articles until I am convinced that you know how to reliably source articles. You can work on the articles you have already created by improving the sourcing to Wikipedia standards. If you create another article before I have given you the go ahead, I will indefinitely block you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

break
I'm not pulling my hair out. I'm just seeing 2007 (and sometimes 1989) and funny entries created.Sammartinlai (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - When you stick comments in the middle of threads, it can create confusion. Plus there is no need for it, if you want to reply to specific person, just WP:PING them. As for your hair, surely you know that is just a figure of speech? It was not meant literally, it just way of saying that someone appears to be frustrated. Now, I've replied to the comment that you seem to have posted to me. The additional comments that you appeared to have posted to J-Man11 are just below. They will be at the bottom, where they belong chronologically. When J-Man11 (hopefully) reads this page he will see them, and with no comments below them to cause any confusion, he will (hopefully) reply. Remember, he is a new user having some difficulty using talk pages, so let's try and keep things as simple and easy to understand as possible, k? - wolf  09:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @J-Man11 - Just so questions don't get lost, please respond to Peacemaker67's questions right below his post, above the "break". If you have a response to Sammartinlai's comments, right after this post, please comment right below them. If you have any other comments or questions, feel free to start a new section. Hopefully this page can remain somewhat orderly. - wolf  09:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop being so (Personal attack removed) . I know what the phrase means. Also this is very (Personal attack removed) of you, intentionally replying and focusing on just my edits.Sammartinlai (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are unbelievably rude. You need to chill out, and stop with the personal attacks. I don't care about your edits, I posted a comment to someone else, not you, on yet another someone else's talk page, not yours. And like the rest of your non-stop flood of frenzied posts; you replied to me. So you've got all this completely backward. You realize this is a collaborative project, right? Something we are trying to expound to our new friend here. So calm down, learn some manners and civility, and stop derailing every thread with ridiculous posts like that. They are not in any way helpful. This isn't about you, this is J-Man's page and we're trying to help him. Got it? - wolf 10:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Uhm ok..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @J-Man11 Yes, it has become a little confusing here. There are a lot of needless comments that you don't really need to be concerned about. If you like, you can delete all of this, it is your talk page after all. I would recommend however, that you keep the 'welcome' template handy and I strongly recommend that you reply to Peacemaker67's questions, up just above the section 'break'. He and Buckshot06 are both admins, and are the two editors here, so far, that you should be most concerned about. If they post here, you should definitely respond, and promptly. - wolf  00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

2007 is not a significant year. It is 3 years before SDSR 2010 and around 9 years since SDR 1998. I fail to see the significance. All you do is use a single source--the archives of the British Army website--and dubious sources. So it is not siginificant. Please do not treat this as a FANDOM site.Sammartinlai (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Because of 2006-2007 was when the modern regiments were merged and created, as the structure was schanged around.. Also I have sooo many sources for that specifc year also.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @J-Man11: Puh-leeeze... indent and sign your posts. It's not rocket science. - wolf 00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What are "modern regiments"? What evidence do you have that they were merged? Or created? I assume "schanged" means "chenged" but how much was it changed by? How does that prove 2007 as a year was significant? Don't go to slang with "sooo". And if you have all these proofs, answer the Afd.Sammartinlai (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Further comment. Army 2020 (the original) started in 2013, not even 2010, so 2007 is way off the target for any UK Defence Review.Sammartinlai (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, J-Man11. I want you to give me a couple of examples of regiments that were merged or created immediately after 2007 that would justify having a 2007 ORBAT. And you MUST start indenting and signing your posts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exaclty. Even if there were some merging of regiments or creation (I have my doubts), how does it prove that 2007 is a significant year? Again, I argue that there was no Defence Review near enough to that year. There was not any siginficant plan like Army 2020 (see this PDF from archives http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131002123834/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_Report.pdf since you have a love for archives) which was created in 2013, as a responseto SDSR 2010. Now that is siginficant. Where is the document that lays out a structure as a result of a SDR/SDSR? Sammartinlai (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

2007 British Army order of battle
Ok J-Man11, let me show your most recent references to the 2007 British Army order of battle article.

"Divisions and Brigades". 2007-10-13. Retrieved 2018-11-06. "42 (NW) Brigade". 2008-02-09. Retrieved 2018-10-01. "1 RIFLES". 2007-10-05. Retrieved 2018-10-01. "51 (Scottish) Brigade". Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 21 September 2018. "7 RIFLES". 2008-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-01.

Or better yet, I show the edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_British_Army_order_of_battle&action=history. All I see are archives to the British Army's website in 2007, a website clearly not officially used anymore. That proves that there were these units in the British Army in and around 2007. It does not prove 1) that they were significantly created or merged (as you argue) in 2007 or 2) that they were a result of defence reviews or changes made in 2007 or a few years before (few as not in more than 5).

For example, the source "Divisions and Brigades". It just lists the brigades and sub-units at that archive page. How do we know they were merged and/or created in 2007? Why was that so? (As in, what Defence Review or British Army plan?) Were the majority or units merged or created then? How even then does it prove that 2007 is a significant year to warrant an article for it?

Sammartinlai (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I know they were merged because regiments like the rifles, yorkshire, duke of lancaster's and a few others were created in 2007, also I have 4 different webpages for 2007 structures, say compared to 2002 when they were re-organized

Me (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Please use : when replying. 2) Please capitalise the names of regiments and spell them properly. 3) You have not provided evidence (Archives of British Army website is a weak source). 4) It still does not answer why 2007 is a siginificant year. 5) Wikiepdia doesn't support personal research, see No original research so your 4 different webpages may not qualify. 6) Now we are at 2002. There was no UK defence review in 2002, the most former was the 1998 SDR. What are you aiming at? 7) You mentioned "merged". Where are the regiments/units created in 2007 or immediately after as @Peacemaker67 asked? Sammartinlai (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, so the creation of RIFLES occurred on 1 February 2007, involving the amalgamation of the RGJ, LI, D&Ds, RGBWLI and the TA Rifle Volunteers and TA Royal Rifle Volunteers. Now we're getting somewhere. This was a major change to the infantry regiment structure, and grew out of the 2003 Defence White Paper modified by a MoD decision on 24 November 2005. Also, the creation of the YORKS was a 2006 change, and LANCS and SCOTS (and possibly others) were also 2006 changes. The question is, was 2007 (or more likely 2008, given RIFLES was a 2007 change) a steady state before the advent of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, or did more amalgamations occur after 2007 (or 2008)? And is this the right year for a British Army ORBAT, which appears to be what this is trying to be? And do we have reliable sources for the content? Where did you get the information in the article from, J-Man11? Was it the archived British Army pages from October 2007? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As you said yes, many new regiments were created as the structure really changed, this was the structure after the 2006 and 2007 amalgamations, and these are my sources:
 * [|British army old website with structure]
 * [|Another old british army structure website]
 * [|A ::book on the british army (in detail)]


 * In addition, the actual amount of battalions actually decreased, so thats why I personally feel 2007 is important compared to say... 2010 or 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept in-principle the idea of a 2007 (or 2008) ORBAT for the British Army is probably encyclopaedic, on the basis that is shows the final outcomes of the 2003 White Paper. I think the British Army Guide 2008-2009 by Charles Heyman and published by Pen & Sword is definitely the better source, and should be the main one relied on for this article, as it provides a snapshot of 2007. Do you actually have a hard copy of that, or are you working off the Google Books preview? This is an important question because if you are working off the preview the article will be incomplete, because not all pages are available in preview. The archived MoD webpage isn't ideal and shouldn't be heavily relied upon, and the other one doesn't seem reliable to me, it is some sort of Defence industry directory. And please start signing your posts with ~, other editors manage to do it, so you can too. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm just working off the preview, if need be I can get it, but (atm) I'm using that more as a backup, I use the new, middle 2009-2015 and old british websites as my mains ones. J-Man11 (Talk) 12:38, 13 November 2018 (EST)
 * To be crystal clear, www.armedforces.co.uk is NOT reliable, so don't use it at all. You MUST use reliable sources, as I have tried to explain several times. When your block expires, DO NOT use www.armedforces.co.uk again. The archived British MoD webpages aren't ideal, but are probably useable, however the book is what you should be relying on, not as a backup, as your principal source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why I can't use that website? J-Man11 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, this is user-generated content and is self-published. It is not reliable. OK? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

10th Regiment Royal Artillery
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as 10th Regiment Royal Artillery, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IWI  ( chat ) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!  IWI  ( chat ) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reset your block to one month from today due to confirmed abuse of multiple accounts through your creation and use of . You cannot edit via any accounts or while logged out while this account remains blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * J-Man11. You are incredibly fortunate that Ponyo dealt with this, because I would have indefinitely blocked you for socking after the rigamarole we have already been through with you. Just serve out your block and come back and do what we've been asking you to do. It is the only way you will have a future editing Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Since I'm unblocked now, can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I'm not going to edit anything (text wise) till I know, because I have a lot of stuff to add and I don't want to be banned again.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 * Jman, I wrote you a message at User talk:Justyouraverageme to try and help you out. Please read it. Good luck - wolf  07:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Would love some help
Since I'm unblocked now, can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I'm not going to edit anything (text wise) till I know, because I have a lot of stuff to add and I don't want to be banned again.. J-Man11 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For starters please can you read our guidelines and write in prose. In particular please read WP:PROSE and above all, please do not add any more Orders of Battle to articles: they are lists not prose. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So why am I not allowed to make an OoB? Is it just the way I make them or something? And I'll look at that article.. J-Man11 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can make as many OoBs or other pages you like, just do them your space, for example;
 * User:J-Man11/sandbox
 * User:J-Man11/sandbox 2
 * User:J-Man11/sandbox 3
 * User:J-Man11/sandbox 4
 * or as many as you need. If you're creating OoBs, then when your done, post a link at wt:milhist and some editors there will let you know if its sufficient for article space.. Good luck - wolf  05:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (oops, sorry... seems I was distracted by something off-wiki and left an incomplete thought here. Fixed it. But listen what PM67 has to say below, it's very wise advice. - wolf 15:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I strongly suggest you carefully read our policy on reliable sources before you do anything else. I agree with Dormskirk that you also need to read WP:PROSE. Most of the work you have done so far has been based on unreliable or questionable sources. I don't want you to spend your time creating lists that just won't be accepted because the sourcing is not up to scratch. You really need to do this, it is very important. OK? And no moving lists or articles from your sandbox or user space into mainspace until someone experienced (like wolf, Dormskirk or me) has had a good look at the rationale for the list/article, as well as the sourcing. My earlier warning still stands. If you do create new lists/articles with unreliable sourcing in mainspace without getting someone experienced to check your work first, I will block you again, for longer, because that sort of thing is disruptive for Wikipedia. If you can show that you can use reliable sources, like books, journals and scholarly articles, and you follow these restrictions for the time being, I will consider relaxing these conditions after a while. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When I'm making the articles the problem is I'm doing old information so it's older articles :( J-Man11 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To add on what I just typed, I'm making a draft as I don't want to post it without 'permission / experienced view' Draft J-Man11 (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I have an idea to make a few of the regional brigades, 1 is already made but a lot of them aern't, I have a few sources with good information, can I create those in a sandbox? J-Man11 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to cite where you got each section of information, not just a cluster of citations in the intro. But firstly, did you read our policy on reliable sources? Because it doesn't look like it if you are using marksrussianmilitaryhistory.info, as it clearly isn't reliable. The whole list seems to be based on that webpage. Personal web pages and blogs are almost never reliable per WP:UGC, unless the owner is a recognised and published (in books) expert on the topic. This guy isn't, as far as I can see. So you need to remove everything from that draft page that is drawn from marksrussianmilitaryhistory.info. Also, www.regiments.org:80 is not a reliable source, so you can't use anything from that website either, and need to remove everything from that draft page that is drawn from www.regiments.org:80. So, let me know when you've removed all that info and cited the remaining information more closely so I can verify whether the source supports the info. Don't create any more drafts until we've sorted out the issues with this first one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add that the marksrussianmilitaryhistory.info page has a list of sources at the bottom. It seems to me that, in order to write an article like this, you will probably need to obtain access to these sources yourself (via libraries etc, although some of them might have been digitised and be available online), consult them, and cite them (including page numbers) in order for the sort of detail you wish to include to be acceptably sourced. There might be more recent books available that provide this sort of information, but I must stress you need to be looking for book sources for this information, not unreliable user-generated websites. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How would this be?: Book I found J-Man11 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So I've decided to use this: Main Article Secondary 3rd For More Accurate Information

I'm afraid that this is from the now defunct gamer/ORBAT website orbat.com, who were owned by General Data LLC, as was Tiger Lily Publications. They had the same publisher and editor, and Tiger Lily Publications was essentially a "vanity" publisher (per WP:SPS) of ORBATs associated with the other two entities. So anything from them isn't going to be considered to be reliably published. Don't use anything linked to orbat.com, General Data LLC, or Tiger Lily Publications. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that means none of those three sources are reliable, and you can't use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh* the first time I find something I find really easy to read and amazing it's not allowed.. other Wiki pages use those articles like this. J-Man11 (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They just haven't been cleaned out yet, and were probably added when Wikipedia was young and the reliable sources policy was not properly developed or enforced. Also, Military History Visualized is an "enthusiast" self-published source and is also unreliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * www.researchingww1.co.uk is also a self-published source. Mr Clark makes no mention of any books he has had published, so he wouldn't be considered an expert on British Army ORBATs, so this one is also unreliable. You need to go to libraries and look at books on the history of the British Army. It is very unlikely you will find reliable sources randomly on the internet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So should I remove everything I added that is from those articles? J-Man11 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, anything that came from the sources that I've deleted from the article needs to be removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've had long involvement with orbat.com and the main inspiration, Ravi Rikhye. While you may cast some aspersions on the site in general, and you might be correct, I have no problem whatsoever with Richard A. Rinaldi's work, which is solid. I've added his data frequently into wikipedia, and would have no problem whatsoever endorsing J-Man11's use of it. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is still self-published by orbat.com itself, so we'd need to establish that Rinaldi has been reliably published elsewhere or that he has established himself as an expert through his work and therefore immune from our policy about self-published sources. I'm happy to take it to RSN for a community view, and I don't think we should be encouraging its use by a new editor who is having a lot of trouble navigating our reliable sources policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It sucks that you have to do all this work just to add like 20 words that, more than likely, no one will view.. J-Man11 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, I felt the same way at times when I started editing. But the quality of the sources being used for articles is really important. That is why we have the reliable sources policy, and you need to comply with it. There are three parts to reliability; the author, the publisher and the book/journal/website itself. All three need to be reliable. As I've said several times, if you want to create such ORBAT articles, you need to locate and consult reliably published books on the subject. For example, you can buy an 2014 ebook called Challenge of Battle: The Real Story of the British Army in 1914 by Adrian Gilbert, published by Bloomsbury, and it has a couple of appendices which cover this subject. Also the 2015 ebook Call to Arms: The British Army 1914-18 by Charles Messenger, published by Hachette, and the 2005 book The British Army of August 1914: An Illustrated Directory by Ray Westlake and published by Spellmount appears to have a listing of all regiments and corps of the British Army when war was declared. I suggest you start by getting/borrowing/consulting books like these and use them to cite the article, rather than rely on questionable or unreliable online sources. If you add material from questionable or unreliable sources, your work might just be deleted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(break)

 * Hang in there J-Man, you'll get the hang of it. It doesn't matter if nobody ever sees your work... you'll know about it. You'll know that you made a quality, worthwhile addition to the project. As for sources, you have a couple of very good tutors here guiding you along. Just follow their advice and read, read read. You'll be cranking out solid articles soon enough. - wolf  02:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stupid question, am I allowed, when I'm making a page like that 1914 one to use other Wikipedia articles to not necessarily 'source' but to use..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not stupid question, but this is why I said you gotta read, read, read. Take a look at WP:CW. Basically, no... you can't use WP as a source. You can of course link to relevant articles that you mention in your article, but if you use any content from those articles in yours, you need to provide attribution for it in your edit summary. You still need to provide independent sources for the content in your article. But, also be careful that the source your using didn't get their info from WP, which often happens, (see WP:CIRCULAR). Anyway, I'm sure Peacemaker and/or Buckshot will provide more info on this, especially if any of it pertains to a specific article you're working on, which I'm not aware of, but they may be. Hope this helps - wolf  16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of British Army Structure in 1914


A tag has been placed on British Army Structure in 1914 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 8 Regiment RCT


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 8 Regiment RCT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to draftspace and deleted the mainspace version. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

1st Battalion Scots Guards
Hi - I am not sure why you have created 1st Battalion Scots Guards. This is actually the same military unit as Scots Guards as the regiment only has one battalion and we do not allow competing articles on the same subject. Also it was not properly sourced as required by WP:CITE and WP:RS and it was almost entirely in list form contrary to WP:PROSE. Please can I again, respectfully, ask you to start reading Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * J-Man11, I'm going to have to enforce my restriction on creation of new articles. No more new articles unless you properly cite the articles you have already created. Or I'm going to have to block you again. This time it will be for a month, the next time, three months. Just do as we ask please. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you say I properly cited this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) J-Man11 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can submit that one. Good work on it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strike that. The only reliable source is the MOD one, the other two are unreliable. Please use the MOD website or books for sourcing, not self-published websites and blogs by random people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you told me I can't use the mod website.. J-Man11 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What said was that the old archived MOD website was acceptable, but not a high quality source. I think the current MOD website is OK. It would better if you were using books, news articles, government reports etc. Isn't there a publically-available Army 2020 report? The other two websites you are using for the RLC regiments are definitely not reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would had to stop using this because it lays out the structures SOOO well! J-Man11 (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is just some random document, with no indication of where the information comes from. It is unreliable and can't be used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And generally WP:FACEBOOK is not a reliable source either, unless it can be confirmed that the page is the official page of the unit in question, and even then it is a self-published, primary source, and should only be used carefully, and not for anything controversial. The 7 Regiment RLC Facebook page does seem to be the official one though, so you can use it carefully. As I have said over and over again, you need to be using ordinary books, news articles, journal articles etc, and generally avoid most online sources. Please read the stuff at the links I've made above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask about that, but I have a way, on the British Army Website they have the links to the facebook pages XD, so I'm making sure they are 'accurate'.. J-Man11 (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

2nd Regiment Royal Artillery
Hi - I have taken the trouble to re-write the article, which you had posted in list form, as prose (see WP:PROSE). Once it was rewritten it was much easier for the reader to follow the story (which is why we prefer prose). It was then quite apparent to me that your list was inaccurate. During that period British Army units returned to the UK, typically every three years, and your list did not include at least one of those tours in the UK. Once the article was in prose that omission was much more obvious. Please can you study and try and write in prose. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not link or use the term '1st Strike Brigade'
There is no reliable evidence that I've seen saying the formation will be called that. House of Commons sources refer to the 'first Strike Brigade' which does not mean the Army will form a formation known as the '1st Strike Brigade'. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * On the british army website, (I'll copy it), they make a reference to the 1st and 2nd strike brigade here. J-Man11 (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What it says is "3rd (UK) Division will be reorganised to form two Armoured Infantry and two STRIKE brigades". STRIKE appears to be a type of brigade, not the title of the planned brigades, which will very likely be brigades that already exist, such as the 4th, 7th or 20th. Likewise, the Armoured Infantry Brigades won't be called 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade etc, they will just be brigades made up of armoured infantry and the job will be given to existing suitable brigades without changing their titles. Hope this clears this up? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Facebook Government Pages
Someone named meat something keeps removing the facebook references that are from the government facebook.. I was told I can use it as long as it is official.. WTF? J-Man11 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can use them (carefully) if they are official, but they are not "independent of the subject" (the unit), so you need other sources as well, not just Facebook and MOD. To be notable (and therefore justify an article), a unit must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are "independent of the subject". That means you need significant coverage from sources other than Facebook and the MOD website. As I've been telling you for some time now, that means books, journal articles, news websites etc. If there isn't significant coverage of a given unit in these sources, then we shouldn't have an article on it, and it will likely get deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Albanian Land Forces Graphic
Hello. I saw you uploaded File:Albanian Land Force Structure.png. Thank you for contributing OrBat graphics. However yoru graphic contains some errors:
 * 1) Command and Staff - that is the symbol and color for a logistic unit
 * 2) Staff Support Company - that is the symbol for a combat support unit, not a staff support unit, and the color is for logistic units
 * 3) Training Center - that is the symbol for a headquarters or a staff support unit, but the color is for logistic units
 * 4) Zall-Herr Garrison - that is the force symbol for a platoon... I doubt the garrison has the strength of just a platoon
 * 5) Commando Battalion - that is the symbol for Tier 1 Special Force unit (this battalion is a Ranger (Tier 2) type unit)
 * 6) Special Operations Battalion - that is the symbol for Tier 2 Special Force unit (this battalion is a Tier 1 unit)
 * 7) Combat Support Battalion - that is the color for a logistic unit; a combat support unit contains fire support, reconnaissance, engineers etc, but no logistics

Please update/correct the graphic or I will remove it from the article as it contains too many errors. Best regards, noclador (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Good morning. I saw that you took the graphic out of the article. Please update/correct the graphic and then re-insert it. If you need any help with the correct symbols, write me on my talkpage with the questions you have. Best regards, noclador (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed it.. I'm going to re-do it sometime either today or tomorrow and send it to you J-Man11 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 7 Regiment RLC (December 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CoolSkittle was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:7 Regiment RLC and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:7 Regiment RLC, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:7_Regiment_RLC Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CoolSkittle&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:7_Regiment_RLC reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CoolSkittle (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced articles
Hi - I see that you have added a series of articles to wikipedia that are not properly cited:3 Regiment RLC, 8 Artillery Support Regiment RLC and 12 Regiment RLC. One of these articles has just one citation (8 Artillery Support Regiment RLC) and another uses wikipedia as a source (12 Regiment RLC). As previously mentioned to you wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Dormskirk (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it J-Man11 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now converted some bare urls which you had introduced, added some references for you and removed some unsourced text which I cannot source. Again please can you refrain from moving articles into main space until they are properly referenced. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Stupid question.. what is main space? I is that the main text area or the main articles? J-Man11 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a stupid question, it can be confusing at first. Wikipedia pages can be created in various "spaces". The WP:MAINSPACE is where we view and edit articles and lists that have been accepted (there is no prefix in mainspace), there is also draftspace (with the Draft: prefix) and userspace (with the User: prefix). We also have the Wikipedia namespace where policies and guidelines are. Have a read of the link above, which explains all the "spaces". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that is indeed not a stupid question, as the different "spaces" trip up many new users. But that said, I could've sworn that you were advised to check with Peacemaker or Buckshot before moving articles from draft to main (perhaps can correct me if I'm wrong?). I'm not saying this to chastise you J-Man, I just don't want to see you get blocked again. I know you want you help build the project by creating and contributing to articles, but you can't do that if you end up banned. -  wolf  02:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Major sourcing error
I'm sorry to say that this edit introduced a major sourcing error into 5th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). You stated the data came from the (excellent) BAOR 1989 document.

But 5th Airborne Brigade as it was in 1989 was neither in BAOR in Germany, nor committed to Germany in wartime; it was actually the only major formation allocated for home defence, and based in the UK (Beevor 1989). So the source you added *COULD NOT* contain the data you said it had, and you evidently did not check before copying the data wholesale from Noclador's previously draft page, Structure of the British Army in 1989. Just because the BAOR document is listed at the bottom of that page does not mean that everything is sourced from that document. Noclador actually built most of the data from Andy Johnson's original "NATO 1989 order of battle", widely accessible from Scribd or microarmormayhem, now about v.8.

This again emphasizes your remaining very careless attitude to sources; you would have only had to open the linked BAOR 1989 document and done a search for 5th Airborne Brigade to find that the data was not there. The problem at that page has been fixed now accidentally by BlueD954's rather unwarranted continual rollbacks of your edits, but the central problem remains: you're introducing errors in sourcing here, there, and everywhere.

You're not really committed to WP:Verifiability; you're still treating this as (a bit more than, after constant pestering) your fan pages.

I am not quite decided whether it is necessary to block you, or you can be tutored further. , your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Given serious issues with being able to determine what is or is not a reliable source despite many attempts to explain it (using lexicon der wehrmacht, for example), poor attention to verifiability shown above, and recent creations of new pages for German divisions that already had pages, competence is required comes to mind. J-Man11 has also been ignoring my warnings to not create new articles without running them past an experienced editor first, which, given the disruption caused by their editing so far, is a quite reasonable restriction IMO. I tend to AGF with newbies, but I'm not getting the impression that J-Man11 wants to comply with our policies and guidelines, and wants to plough on regardless. BTW, if you decide to block, I think a month is about right on the escalation scale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one more check, third opinion - ? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just my 0.02¢... what about a hard ban on moves to article space. Right now just call it indefinite. At some point down the road if J-Man shows an acceptable degree of competence, lift the ban. But until then maken it clear and unambiguous... all work to be done in draft space or sandbox only. J-Man is not to move a single page to main space. He is to request a move from one of us or a new page reviewer. If he moves a page to main space, it's an automatic block (30 days?). As for main space edits, he must propose them on the talk page. Any edits to an article in main space on his own... same thing, automatic block. Sounds harsh, but it's not as bad as being blocked right now. This way, he can continue to build, contribute and learn, without disrupting the project. Cant learn much if he's blocked right now and where will he be when the block ends in a month? No better off. I think this could work..And if there was a designated mentor, that would help too. I think J-man really does want to contribute, its just taking him longer than most to catch on. This is JMHO, would still like to hear what Hawkeye has to say. Cheers - wolf  11:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made a few edits and noticed there was a discussion here.. should I revive them? Took me a while :(.. J-Man11 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this is a pretty serious discussion right here. Have you read all of it? And do you understand all of it? It looks like you created some articles without checking first and made some edits where there was some sourcing problems, that other editors have had to fix for you. Also, Peacemaker has posed some questions to you and you didn't respond. So don't "revive any edits". In fact, my advice to you is to do nothing and just watch this page to see what happens next. Right now they are considering blocking you, for possibly 30 days. I'm trying to help you. I've proposed an alternative solution. But you gotta wait and see what they say next, or decide to do next. You could, and probably should do all your editing in your sandboxes for the next day or so. Work on finding proper sources and add them to the content in your sandbox. Read the policies and guidelines, especially WP:RS and WP:CITE. Just keep working in your sandboxes (I showed you how to make more) and wait until you hear from Peacemaker or Buckshot, and see what happens next. Hang in there bro. - wolf  05:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say that am I allowed to work on my drafts? and I'll look for that question.. J-Man11 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are "allowed" to do anything that any Wikipedia editor without restrictions is allowed to do. I'm not disallowing you from doing anything, nor is it my place to. I am however, suggesting that under the circumstances, you limit yourself to draft or sandbox pages until you hear further from Peacemaker or Buckshot. That is just my advice to you as they clearly have some concerns about your editing and article creation. - wolf  05:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm trying to look more into government websites / articles and books lately.. I'll try more..! J-Man11 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should stay working in draftspace for now, and submit articles through myself,, or through the usual draft submission process. That means you are not to move any article from draftspace or your sandbox, or create articles in article space until further notice. I will block you for a month if you don't comply with these restrictions. Please respond to this comment to indicate you have understood what I telling you. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Endorsed. J-Man11, we're closely monitoring your edits (though we would much prefer not to have to). You are not to move any article from draftspace or your sandbox, or create articles in article space until further notice. I will block you for a month plus if you don't comply with these restrictions. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Drafts

 * Do you want me to share my drafts? Atm I'm doing it on my page atm..! J-Man11 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly at liberty to link to your working drafts via your userpage. Please, however, respond and indicate that you understand these restrictions (a form of abbreviated community consensus). Please, avoid abbreviations which not all may understand (though 'at the moment' is clear). Buckshot06 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To do anything more on the British Territorial Army of the 1980s, I would suggest you order off the internet Bob Peedle, Encyclopedia of the Modern Territorial Army. My notes are no longer in their original form, and cannot be relied upon, having been amended with SDR changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few drafts if you guys wouldn't mind looking at them to help me out..:
 * Draft:3rd Signal Group (United Kingdom)
 * This one needs a few more citations and page numbers for the ones it already has. I've tagged where attention is needed. Also, read MOS:BOLD regarding bolding, which is generally done only in the MOS:LEAD for alternative names. I'll look at the others when this one is up to scratch. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to add the page numbers but I'll look on it..J-Man11 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great job. I've made some tweaks, expanded the lead, fixed the bolding and some other MOS stuff, combined the citations etc. It is now at the minimum standard as a new Start-class article. But as I've noted on the talk page, we really need more than one source for a subject to be presumed notable, so you need to find at least one other source before this one can be moved to article space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's not easy but I've been trying.. J-Man11 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you don't create new drafts unless you have already identified two reliable sources on the unit that are independent of it (ie not Facebook or the unit webpage). Otherwise there is a danger that they will just not be deemed notable and end up getting deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the regiments.org archive; note that brigade sized formations are not of a specific corps, and should not be referred to as 'Royal Signals' or any other corps (soldiers from other corps will be in the brigade/group HQ); note that it wasn't British Forces Cyprus which didn't exist at the time, but rather Near East Land Forces; do not link terms that don't match (military communications DOES NOT EQUAL signal support group) would be my comments at present. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I need to find more info on the signal group, but the others I had a good amount on.. J-Man11 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:1st Signal Regiment Royal Signals
 * Draft:2nd Regiment Royal Signals
 * Draft:3rd Regiment Royal Signals
 * Draft:4th Regiment Royal Signals
 * Draft:7th Regiment Royal Signals
 * All of these regiment articles need to be moved to their most recent title - read WP:MILMOS. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to say that it is now "1st Division Headquarters and Signal Regiment" AFAIK, and that should be used with the (United Kingdom) disambiguator. There is a bit of a confusing issue with the 1st Division, as it was created from HQ 4th Armoured Division during the 1993 drawdown from Germany. Not sure how best to handle that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of the divisional signals regiment, we don't need to worry. 1 Armd Div became Lower Saxony District, and so, usefully, did its signal regiment. So for our purposes, 1 ADSR disbanded (on redesignation to Lower Saxony Signal Regt) and then reformed as 1 Armd Div Signals from (4 ADSR?) within twelve months. All supported (and sourced) from the gold standard Royal Signals source. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it would be nice if this was explained in English XD SorryJ-Man11 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to do this properly, learning the acronyms helps. But, ADSR = Armoured Division Signal Regiment (1, 3, and 4 during the late 1980s). I continue to urge you to order Encyclopedia of the Modern Territorial Army. I would kindly request you to avoid the use of 'XD'. We are trying to put together an encyclopedia, not a random set of webpages. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, which ones do you think need to be moved? For example, it appears that 1st Signal Regiment is again separate and under 11th Signal Brigade and Headquarters West Midlands, tasked with support to the armoured infantry brigades. 2nd Signal Regiment likewise, but supporting the rapid reaction forces? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Once we figure out the correct current designations, and I do a careful double-check, I'm happy to consider moving 1 and 2 Signal Regiments. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * J-Man11, I would much appreciate it if you would cease and desist from creating any more draft pages. For 1 Sigs Regt, please start by applying Template:Cite Web to citations 6, 7, and 8. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Work on improving the citations and adding extra sources to the drafts you already have. None of them is ready for mainspace yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Invoking WP:IAR, I have just deleted Draft:9th (Radio) Regiment Royal Signals. Even if you were authorised to create any more pages, the article, following WP:MILMOS, should be at Joint Services Signal Unit (Cyprus), its current designation. DO NOT CREATE ANY MORE DRAFT PAGES. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought you said that I couldn't create pages unless they were drafts for a while..? J-Man11 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

When setting a title of an article, lets say the "United States of America" if I do the J-Man11 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean creating a piped link for Wikilinks? That's done with (alt text) . —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 21:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No lets say when I do J-Man11 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it the same as "Re-direct?"J-Man11 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're describing piped links. e.g. Devon. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Royal Corps of Signals is the actual code. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be some confusion here, let me explain a bit: There is a difference between a redirect and displayed text on a link. The former quite literally shunts you to a different page entirely; the latter allows you to make a link with different display text on a page. The two are nowhere near analogous; it is impossible to get an article to display a redirect's title (other than the small "Redirected from " note under the title). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But let's not get distracted here. Buckshot06 has told you to not create any more drafts, and I agree. I would add to this that you need to improve the ones you've already created so they are ready for mainspace. They are not at present, because almost all of them rely entirely on one source (plus the dubious Facebook citations in a few cases). Many of the citations are to bare urls, and are not properly formatted per Template:cite web etc. Bottom line is that you need to finish what you start. Otherwise we will have a bunch of draft articles with insufficient sourcing hanging around waiting for eventual deletion because they are not meeting the general notability guideline. You need to check that you have at least two reliable sources "independent of the subject" (ie not Facebook or unit webpages) for an article before you even create a draft, and you haven't been doing that. Until you properly source the drafts you have already created, no more drafts. I'll block you for creating any more drafts if that is what it takes to get the message across. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can't make Drafts can I make normal articles again?J-Man11 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NO!! FIX YOUR WONKY, INADEQUATE, ARTICLES YOU HAVE ALREADY STARTED!! For 1 Sigs Regt, please start by applying Template:Cite Web to citations 6, 7, and 8. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)