User talk:FarSouthNavy/Archive 3

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Gada82.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gada82.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with Harpoon
Hi! I've seen you're involved in the Operation Harpoon... can you help me with the rank of admiral Alban Curteis? --Zerosei (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:B-23-1991.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:B-23-1991.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Spanish submarine G-7
Hello Darius I notice you removed some italics on this page; do you feel they are un-necessary? It was my understanding that non-english terms (except personal names) that aren't loanwords were italicized in english text. On a wider subject, I'd have liked to see this article expanded a bit, but I have no information about the vessel. It is also the subject of a merge discussion, here, so it may not be around much longer (It was my mistake; I saw a note on the MILHIST talk page, but missed the discussion (I must have been looking here) and deleted the tag. Sorry for the confusion). Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Xyl 54. Frankly I didn't read what the MoS recommends in cases like this, but some non-English terms that are frequently used in history texts (like "Führer", "Carabinieri", "Sûreté", "Luftwaffe") are usually treated as loanwords, therefore I removed italics from the well-known proper noun "Kriegsmarine". That is not the case of the phrase Armada Española, which I replaced for the common English "Spanish Navy". Regarding the article itself, I found two pages in Spanish, here and here, which could be quite useful for expanding the text. Per these sources, the Spanish life of U-537 was mostly uneventful, exception made of a movie where she played the 'role' of Gunther Prien's U-47 and the removal of her net cutter. There were plans to fit the submarine with a Spanish-made snorkel, but these plans were dropped when the Spaniards acquired the Balao class USS Kraken from the US Navy.--Darius (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that information on G-7. If you’ve no objection I’ll use them to add some stuff to the article. As for the italics, I suppose whether a word counts as a loanword or not can be a bit subjective; it's no big deal. Anyway, all the best, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection from my part, I'am not the copyright holder ;). Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Third Punic war
I know you have now removed the offending text, but this edit summary is completely misguided. Copyediting a copyvio contribution and adding a new source does not stop it from being a copyvio of the original source. If the information is kept, it needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, not tinkered with by changing a word here and there. In future, please do not restore material that has been removed due to copyright violation until after the issue has been discussed. You might also like to take a look at WP:BRD.  Spinning Spark  18:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I have now info that I didn't knew at the time of this edit. Please, read the date of the first mention of the "peace treaty" in the article (2005) and this 2007 version. Second, read the date of the page you claim was 'victim' of copyvio (2008). Conclusion: It's obvious that the website was pasting and copying text from Wikipedia, and not the opposite. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss, exception made of a warning to the owner of the 2008 site. Third and last: the disputed text is no more there per the right reason, this is WP:NOT. If you have any doubts, see this 2005 thread on the talk page. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I stand corrected. I agree this is trivia which adds little to the article.  Spinning  Spark  19:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Best regards.--Darius (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Drummuckavall Ambush
I'm glad to see you working on Troubles-related articles again. Now that the topic ban has expired, I wunder if you could take a look at this. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Asarlaí, thanks for bearing me in mind. Here you are the answers you were seeking for. All the best.--Darius (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Dhm9025detail.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dhm9025detail.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — howcheng  {chat} 07:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Czajankových barracks > Battle of Czajánek's barracks
Hello,

Mr. Czajanek/Čajánek was a former owner of a factory that predated the barracks, therefore, unless you object, I will move the article to "Battle of Czajanek's barracks" (or maybe Battle of Čajánek's barracks). Czajankových means Czajanek's in Czech.

In case I find a time, I will also add some more information to the article. I would like to work more on the "background section", adding basic information regarding Munich and position of the barracks in respect of the 1938 Polish invasion of the areas North-East (Zaolzie) and North-West (Slovakia).

I am considering adding also more details of the skirmish itself, however, sources seem to contradict itself on details.

Most importantly, sources mention that lieutenant Štětina, who was in charge of the garrison, received orders not to engage Germans prior to the battle, however so far I could not establish whether these were passed on to the soldiers, and especially to the sentries at the gate. I read a couple of years ago that the battle took place because the soldiers did not know they were supposed to let the Germans take over, however I could not find the source today.

Thank you for your response in advance. Best Regards & peaceful holidays,

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't object anything since I don´t speak a single word of Czech, I hardly can pronounce the name of a former mate in the Lyceum who is of Czech descent ;). I became fascinated with this story, absolutely unknown outside the Czech republic, I guess. No wonder that even Czech authors left contradicting reports. The idea of writing an article about the battle was in my agenda since August, to say the least. I had a hard time with computer-generated translations, but apparently it works. Thanks for adding more sources in your mother tongue, these make the page more and more interesting. Best wishes, and happy 2013!--Darius (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.--Darius (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Saar Offensive
Nice work on this article, it was not in good shape before. The topic of this battle often seems to be an excuse to bash the French, but your edits present a balanced version of the events.

Awhile back, I intended to rewrite this article and bring out some of the very real terrain and tactical difficulties faced by the French Army in September 1939. You may find the material in at User:W._B._Wilson/sandbox useful for any future edits you make.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, WB Wilson, the new version will be quite more comprehensive than the current page, Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Vrbanja bridge
Great work on getting this article together. Given the work you put in creating it, I consider it goes to your credit if you want to submit it for the monthly MILHIST competition. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Peacemaker67, I think it's you who deserve the credit for the B class rating, even if the original idea was mine. I was working on this article's framework for a couple of months, but some personal problems prevented me from improving the narrative. Thanks for your idea regarding the monthly MILHIST competition, I will considered that. Best Wishes.--Darius (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Australian warship class moves
Hi, I've just removed those articles back to their un-hyphenated names as, based on the sources I've checked, these aren't applied to Australian warships in Australian references. There's a discussion of this at WT:SHIPS. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I was unaware of the current discussion.--Darius (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Dubrovnik
Hi! Please use established harvnb refs if at all possible in the Siege of Dubrovnik to make the refs consistent. I have two questions regarding your recent edits: What is so notable about otherwise non-notable ferry and sailboat that warrants mention in the article (Adriatic and Pelagic)? Why do you think that Mesić's personal recollection of Libertas convoy voyage is sufficient to reliably place the ships at one particular time in specific spots in the adriatic? He was not an experienced sailor, so I'm not that sure that he was capable of identifying types of naval ships or distinguishing whether he was off Korčula or Hvar. As you can see none of these are central to the topic (the siege), therefore I think those would be best removed since notability or reliability of the events is questionable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomobe03. I thought that the citations' style was just a question of preferences; frankly I was unaware of WP:CITEVAR. Things are fixed now, as you can see. Regarding the other issues, I think the fact that the Serb-led Yugoslav forces targeted civilian ships inside Dubrovnik main harbour during the siege is pretty notable, and should be mentioned in the narrative. And for Mesić's account, I agree with you that he's hardly an experienced sailor, but as (formal and now former :) Prime Minister of Yugoslavia and the highest authority on board the convoy, he must have been informed by an experienced seaman (the commander of Slavija, I guess) on hourly basis about the situation of the fleet, the type of Yugoslav Navy's vessels they face, etc. In any case, someone can also question the reliability of the former source, a 2009 press report about the 18th anniversary of the relief operation.--Darius (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:World War II Croatian concentration camps in former Yugoslavia
Category:World War II Croatian concentration camps in former Yugoslavia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AltFerrandiz.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:AltFerrandiz.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships damaged by kamikaze attack
Category:Ships damaged by kamikaze attack, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bucaná River
Hi. I noticed the edit you made HERE. Per WP:Naming conventions (use English) we should also include the native name in the first line ("The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article"). I have added it to the article to complete the edit. Regards, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Thank you for the info Mercy11, Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rio Hondo, California and Rio Salado, New Mexico
The American English name of these two watercourses remains in the original Spanish - as defined by both the USGS and common usage. Therefore, I've moved them back. The names are relics of the Spanish and Mexican heritage of the Southwest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558364616 your edit] to Irish National Liberation Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

File source problem with File:Italian landing at Sitia 1941.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Italian landing at Sitia 1941.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sitia 1941.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sitia 1941.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cassiopea-RM.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Cassiopea-RM.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

HMS Aldenham
Hi! Noticed your recent addition to the HMS Aldenham, and since it appears to be unsupported by any of the sources offered ("MTSM motor torpedo boat disabled Eridge"), could you please let me know where does this information come from. This is important to me since I nominated the article for GA review and any unsourced claims are dealbreakers there. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NB: The information on the Eridge being torpedoed by MTSM-228 found in the Eridge article is completely unsupported. The "Ships of the Royal Navy" offered at the article does say Eridge was damaged, but not how or by whom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On the second thought, the action where Eridge was torpedoed has absolutely nothing to do with Aldenham, so I undid the addition as unsourced and offtopic. Aldenham merely towed Eridge - the engahgement with MTSM-228 involved Eridge, Croome and Hursley. Hope you don't mind.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. First of all, a published, reliable source like Greene, Jack and Massignani, Alessandro (2004). The Black Prince And The Sea Devils: The Story Of Valerio Borghese And The Elite Units Of The Decima Mas. Da Capo Press, p. 40. ISBN 0306813114, states unequivocally that Eridge was torpedoed by an MTSM off El Daba (Egypt) when both destroyers were shelling Axis facilities (See also HMS ALDENHAM (L 22) - Type III, Hunt-class Escort Destroyer). Aldenham took part of the main action according to the cited sources, therefore the enemy craft(s) she and her sister faced are worth to be referred to.


 * On the other hand, besides being supported not by a newspaper, but by an experts' book, the mention of the craft which torpedoed the RN unit is as relevant as other parts of the article, such as "She assisted HMS Eskimo removing wounded when she was attacked and hit by the Luftwaffe on 15 July" or "Each destroyer fired 500 four-inch (100 mm) shells against bunkers and barracks on the island between 09:00 and 11:20. The town of Pag itself was targeted by the destroyers for an hour at 14:00,". In both cases, the reference to the Luftwaffe (which didn't attacked Aldenham in this occasion) in the first and the number of shells fired or the targets in the second could be also considered "off-topic" following this standard.--Darius (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again. First of all, your initial edit was not referenced at all. Kemp, p.192 specifically lists Eridge, Croome and Hursley taking part in the bombardment, not Aldenham. Obviously Greene/Massignani differs in this respect. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other but I do not really care for additions of unsourced material such as the one made before by you. I'll check with more experienced editors in the field which source Kemp or Greene is to be trusted on this one if you don't mind.


 * The second source you offered (naval-history.net) is not a WP:RS - please remove it as it does not meet WP:V. Finally, the article uses harvnb references, please use that form per WP:CITEVAR. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this is likely to involve other editors, I copied this discussion to article talk so we can move this there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Citation style fixed. Another source listing Aldenham taking part in the selling added. I have reverted my initial edit, no need to insist on this point. You can see my edit history, I never leave statements without a proper source. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here
Hey DagosNavy

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Okeyes, thanks a lot for making me aware of VE, I was using it for a couple of days, even before the 1 July deadline; it takes just a small step for an edit, but it means a giant leap for Wikipedia :). Cheers!.--Darius (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion requested.
DN would you be kind enough to look in at Glenanne_barracks_bombing. I've started a discussion there and because you created the page and obviously have an opinion I'd like to get your views on what I have written by way of a proposal. Thanks. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * DN can I suggest you examine the section I have written at 2nd_Battalion,_Ulster_Defence_Regiment. Going through my own sources I am finding information which conflicts with yours.  I'm particularly concerned about your use of the term "high explosive" with regards to what was in the lorry.  Potter states that is was actually home made ANFO mix which is a "low explosive" detonated by a high grade primer charge.  SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Glenane.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Glenane.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation of rivers
You've recently moved a number of river articles to a name with parenthetical disambiguation, claiming concordance with the MOS. To what part of the MOS were you referring? Per WP:NCRIVER, these names were perfectly acceptable. Per WP:NATURAL, parenthetical disambiguation is only necessary when natural disambiguation is not possible. The articles you moved can all be disambiguated naturally. For example, if there were a town called "Huebra", then we would need to have Huebra (town) and Huebra (river). But there is no such town, nor any other article with this title, so there is no need to use the parenthetical qualifier, and thus the move was unnecessary. Ibadibam (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved Spanish rivers articles per MoS because most rivers in Spain share its name with valleys, villages and dams, no matter if there is currently a WP article on these subjects or not.--Darius (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. That makes sense. Is it possible that, in some cases, the river is still the primary topic? In those cases, we would want something like Huebra, Huebra Dam and Huebra (village). Also, I'm thinking the rationale doesn't quite fit for an article like Mijares River, since the article name already gives enough information for disambiguation, doesn't it? Just trying to save you some work, if these articles don't really need to be moved. Ibadibam (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you're right regarding the question of the primary topic, since in the cases of major rivers, the river itself is the main subject to disambiguate. I disagree, however, on the Mijares, whose name is both a Spanish surname and a toponym (see Spanish WP disambiguation). Thanks for your tips anyway. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're here, because I must say I wouldn't have known that about Mijares. How about we leave it as Mijares River? That's preferable to Mijares (river), and matches the Spanish wiki (Rio Mijares, not Mijares (rio)). That's what WP:NATURAL is all about, anyway. So I'm proposing moving these river articles from X (river) to X River to conform to the MOS guideline and preserve the disambiguation you've put in place. What do you think? Ibadibam (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, this is not a major issue for me, so I have no problems with your proposal. I had already explained my reasons to move these pages above, but I think that your solution is the better way out.--Darius (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think of it as our solution, because I might have reverted your moves if you hadn't helped me understand why we needed to disambiguate these titles. Thanks for your help and your time. Face-smile.svg Ibadibam (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Slavic names
Today's German towns don't need your "modern slavic" (Polish) names, thank you. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I never heard that these documented Polish names (see Polish Wikipedia) were "mine", thank for your appreciations. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. How are these names relevant to GERMAN towns, anyway? I'm about to make a spam report on you. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * SPAM???? Maybe I am the owner of a Polish company and I have no previous knowledge of it.... :) Those names are historic names, toponyms in a German area formerly settled by Slavic tribes and under Polish influence during the middle ages. And please, don't remove sourced info, or I will report you for vandalism.--Darius (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not unreasonable to give common foreign-language names in the lead, particularly when those names are local (e.g. in Pomeranian) or they are used in English-language sources. Gdańsk and Kaliningrad are good examples of this: the names were changed in the modern era, and thus some earlier sources may use "Danzig" and "Königsberg". But if a foreign name is little used in English of any era, there's no need to give it. This really ought to be decided for each article separately. Ibadibam (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ibadibam, actually WP:NAMES allows the use of alternative names used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Since all the towns, villages and cities we are discussing about were settled or founded by Slavic peoples, Slavic (Polabians or Polish) terms enters in this category and therefore should be included in those articles or stubs.--Darius (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, but modern Polish isn't relevant, because that's not the language that is or was spoken in most of the cities we're talking about. One can't simply substitute any one Slavic language for any another. Ibadibam (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's OK for some places, but remember that Western Pomerania was a fief of the Kingdom of Poland in the 12th century and Lubusz Land was part of the Duchy of Silesia from the 10th up to the 13th century, as well as Lusatia. Köpenick and Meissen were also fiefdoms of Poland during a brief period in the 11th century. Post-WWII Polish cartography also uses former Slavic (mostly Polabian) toponimics.--Darius (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, and 13th-century Polish placenames are appropriate in some of these articles when they discuss that period. All I'm trying to say is that modern Polish doesn't satisfy WP:NAMES, unless it's either in local use or in English-language sources. In some cases I support the edits you've made (although the label "modern Slavic" isn't particularly useful), but inserting Polish into the article for every little village may not always be helpful to the reader. Ibadibam (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because a piece of information is "sourced", that doesn't mean it should go in the article. You could just as well put a sourced information about a Godzilla movie in the Wismar article - but it's just not relevant. Like the Polish names aren't relevant for the article introduction here. You can try to add them to a place's name history, but that again has to be relevant here. The slavic names mostly aren't equal to Polish or Polabian names. I'll put this elsewhere if you don't find a proper solution - the current one isn't. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with you that sourced information doesn't grant inclusion in any article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but Polish and Polabian names are certainly relevant to these articles' ledes. May be a Godzilla movie is relevant just to one city (Tokio, I guess :), but we can't deny the importance of the fact that the founders or the first settlers of all current Germany's lands northeast of the Elbe (Łaba) were Polabian tribes (see Germania Slavica). We can neither hide the fact of Polish influence in areas like Mecklemburg-Vorpommern, parts of Brandenburg (Lebus Land, Köpenick), and Meissen (Miśnia) from the X to the XII century, as testified by several sources (Rehman, A. Niżowa Polska opisana pod względem fizyczno-geograficznym, Krakow 1904, Thomas Kantzow "Pomerania", tom 1, Szczecin 2005, ISBN 83-89341-18-2 or Kazimierz Ślaski, Podziały terytorialne Pomorza w XII-XIII wieku, Poznań 1960). And WP:NAMES allows the inclusion of names that were used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place.--Darius (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Still I think these additions are unnecessary because they're irritating. They imply these names would be commonly used even today. I rather suggest that they are included in the relevant history/name sections of the article. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Move
Salut DagosNavy

Why this move ?

I made the previous move. Cf.WikiProject_Rivers?

Gracias

Alvar ☮ 18:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: "River X" is more natural than "X River", no ? ;D That's part of the problem, which was solved with this naming convention, after rivers of debates


 * Hi Alvaro, see the older thread Parenthetical disambiguation of rivers above, we reached this conclusion with User:Ibadibam per MoS. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw the thread, but... far more than 2 people reached the consensus (WikiProject_Rivers) after a lot of (more or less) heated talks throuhg the years (first discussions in 2003?); have a look in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. You should ask the Project Rivers. Thanks in advance. Alvar ☮  23:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and as a recent example. hmmm... also, Segre River isn't normal, from my own point of view, idem Seine River, Rhine River, Thames River...


 * As I said above, this is not a major issue for me, but per WP:RIVERS, "X River" seems fine. In any case, you can discuss it in User:Ibadibam talk page for a more authorized opinion. Cheers!--Darius (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Dalmatian channels maps
Hi! I noticed you authored the two operational maps in the Battle of the Dalmatian channels articles, but I found no information on sourcing of the two maps. What are the two based upon?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tomoboe03, I am not the author of these maps, I simply transferred them to English Wikipedia from here and here.--Darius (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't expect those will survive GA review then. I added the "approximate positions" to the captions to ameliorate situation, but some of the material in there (times, even several batteries) are completely unsupported by WP:RS. I'll leave them in for now and see if I can find out what are they actually based upon. Unfortunately, hr wiki is no source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You can try to contact the original uploader at Suradnik:Mjurin.--Darius (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the civilian vessels towing damaged vessel after the fighting warrant inclusion in the infobox. Besides, what makes you think they were trawlers?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I want to praise you for nominating the article for GA status. My reasons to include the civilian boats (they were not trawlers, definitively my mistake) in the infobox is due to their role in the capture of Mukos, which otherwise could have been saved by Yugoslav forces.--Darius (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that inclusion of the civilian boats in the infobox might be highly misleading - prompting casual readers to conclude that the Yugoslav Navy somehow engaged the civilian ships. Careful readers will undoubtedly receive the information from the prose alone. Let's see if the GAN reviewer considers those warrant mention in the box or not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that the Yugoslav Navy did actually engage civilian ships during the shelling of Split, killing two civilian sailors. If you also consider the towing of Mukos, we can sum up that there were at list two incidents where Yugoslav warships became involved with Croatian civilian ships during the battle. I agree, however, that the GAN reviewer should have the last word.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rio Negro in Brazil
Hi. I've just moved this back to its older name Rio Negro (Amazon) after your previous move of earlier in the year. Please note that this name was previously discussed, even if it was before current methods and formatting were agreed. Having done that I noticed that you have been moving minor rivers recently, quoting 'MoS'. There is no MoS that I know of on this, and the rivers project page says that any one of the three naming forms are acceptable, depending on local usage, etc. Thanks. Imc (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Duwenbeek
Hi DagosNavy. I've reverted your move of this river for 2 reasons. First, the name of the river is not Duwenbeek River, either in English or German. Second, there is a convention agreed by the Rivers Project that German rivers are simply "Foo" not "River Foo" or "Foo River". If disambiguation is needed, the parent stream is shown in brackets e.g. "Foo (Fooparent)". Hope this helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, mate, I was unaware of the agreement. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rivers in Slovakia
Hi, I saw you moved several Slovak river articles to a "X River" form, quoting the manual of style. Actually, article names are not dealt with in the manual of style, but in the naming conventions. There is already a consensus to use the plain river name (without "River") when "X River" is not common usage, see WP:NCRIVER. This is also true for rivers in Slovakia IMO. I'll revert your moves. Markussep Talk 10:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the tip, I followed WP:NCRIVER, but I failed to read that "Country-specific exceptions to this rule should be discussed within WikiProject Rivers and/or that country's WikiProject." and that common usage may not include the word "River". Best regards.--Darius (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The same system ("X" if it's the main usage of the name X, "X (river)" if disambiguation is required) goes for most European countries, the main exceptions being the UK (where "River X" is common usage) and for some reason Russia. Markussep Talk 12:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Peenemünde
Hi Dagos, could you please rewrite your history section of the Peenemünde article? It's full of grammar mistakes and several words are missing, there's no sense in the paragraph at all. Thanks and cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Horst, It was very early in the morning here in Argentina, I guess I was snoozing :) Darius (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Spacecraft Sea Launch Platforms
Category:Spacecraft Sea Launch Platforms, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles you moved recently
Hi DagosNavy, I already moved back some of the articles you recently moved. In many cases it is not adequate to translate words like "lago, río" from Spanish or other languages into English. Example: "Río Grande" is Spanish for "great river" and belongs together. We wouldn't say "De la Plata River" either (Río de la Plata). "Grande River" as you named it is too much of a good thing. Also Verde Lake, Morto Lake, Azul Lake, Piatto Lake etc. Bye. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Lac" changed to "Lake"
Most of the lakes that were changed from "Lac" to "Lake" are known historically by their French name: Lac La Plonge, Lac La Loche, Lac Ile a la Crosse etc. and should not have been changed. These French names are commonly used on English maps.......Kayoty 04:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, I was unaware that Quebecois lakes are known officially by their French names. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

change explained
El cambio que hice en suprimir a Argentina como colaborador de Paraguay en la guerra del chaco es porque Argentina no puede ser considerado como un colaborador ya que era un país neutro. Y en ninguna parte de la fuente citada dice que Argentina fue colaborador de Paraguay. El mismo articulo en otros idiomas no nombra a la Argentina como un colaborador — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.40.100.31 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The political and military role of Argentina in support of Paraguay is extensively explained by the following cited sources: Gordillo, Gastón and Leguizamón, Juan Martín (2002). El río y la frontera: movilizaciones aborígenes, obras públicas y MERCOSUR en el Pilcomayo. Biblos, p. 44.ISBN 978-950-786-330-1 (Spanish) and Abente, Diego. 1988. Constraints and Opportunities: Prospects for Democratization in Paraguay. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. In the case of Abente, his work is not available right now without subscription, but he clearly states that, despite the facade of neutrality, Argentina did in fact assist Paraguay.


 * Just in case, I will ad a third source in Spanish from a 1984 issue of "Todo es Historia" (a very authoritative publication here in Argentina) and two English-language books.--Darius (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * P/S: Por favor, la próxima vez que me mandés un mensaje escribilo en inglés, si no otros usuarios me van a "tirar la bronca", como decimos en Argentina ;)--Darius (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy ?
The Anti-Katyń propaganda is being continued in Russia, even in Russian Wikipedia ru:Военнопленные польско-советской войны. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC) http://kp.ru/daily/25624.4/790269/ Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, the campaign continues nowadays in Russia, but both the massacre and the documental date back to the time of the Soviet Union. We can re-ad the category "Propaganda in Russia" if you want, but the current category should remain in place.--Darius (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P/S: I see you have already restoring "Propaganda in Russia"; it's OK for me. Regards.--Darius (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To the admin reviewing this request: see the section "DagosNavy" on my talk page. I thank DagosNavy for the review of what I and other editors had to say, and support an unblock. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been unblocked [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard&diff=594071894&oldid=594070903] NE Ent 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Other news

 * A general point first: it's only vandalism if there is a deliberate intent to disrupt Wikipedia. There wasn't. One could argue that if anyone was disrupting Wikipedia it was you and --I won't argue that, but one could. Here's the thing--or one of the things (I'm not going to analyze the mudslinging you and the IP got involved in). This is the start of all of it, and, as anyone can plainly see, the IP editor gave a perfectly coherent edit summary (in fact, I'm going to restore their edit, since they are right). reverts here, giving no reason at all. So the IP reverts (saying, perfectly accurately "don't revert for no reason"), so Niemti reverts again, citing, rather nonsensically and pointily, "don't log off for no reason"--well, the IP wasn't logged in to begin with. So the next time the IP calls Niemti a fuckwit, and while incivility is frowned upon et cetera, well, a valid edit, summary and all, was reverted twice without any reason given. Then the IP does it again, Niemti does it again, the IP editor now has a new IP and reverts again, and then you come in, and it goes from bad to worse. I've run into this IP editor a couple of times. They're fouler-mouthed than many people I know, and the funny thing is they usually have a pretty good reason for it (if there ever is a good reason to lose one's patience--well, you did too): productive edits get reverted for no reason at all, most likely because the offender was an IP editor. Plus, you never gave a reason, and had little more to say than go to the talk page, have some coffee, and you're a drunk vandal. This was a terrible showing on everyone's part, and I'm disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself a. more or less blindly reverted without judging the edit on its merits b. got involved in a rather silly edit war c. misunderstands our definition of vandalism and d. gets carried away in a mud fight. Likewise Niemti really did us a disservice, and if they had used rollback I would have taken it away--for now, I pinged Niemti so they can see, hey, this was really poor behavior. To the IP editor: come on--you know better than this. Both of you got blocked, which for you may not be such a big deal (different IP address tomorrow, maybe, in Santiago or the UK), but you pulled someone into something that then confirmed all the bad shit you already thought about Wikipedia. It's great to be right, I'm sure, but it's hardly productive. And I can ask DagosNavy to look more carefully next time (in fact, I just did), but the fact remains that they are probably a net positive to the project and you just soured their experience. DagosNavy deserves the short block, sure, but what have you gained with that? So, DagosNavy, your block will be over before you know. I hope you will give some thought to what I have tried to explain here. I don't think badly of you, I'm sure you're a net positive, but you got carried away here: next time, you probably won't. All the best. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it was vandalism.

Maybe you should read the source cited: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2368023.stm (Even a vice-mayor of the city who visited the scene had to be treated for gas poisoning.)

Spending 10 seconds to use the magic of google, you'll learn it was Valery Shantsev who was there. He's entered the building and 4 hours after the assault reported on the successful operation, but he did not say a word about casualties. Instead he said: "I saw dead terrorists. I myself saw Barayev, an Afghan and an Arab." (there was no Afghan). I guess they treated him just in case (and gave him the antidote, which they didn't gave to the hostages).

About the SOBRs, afair they've entered with no gas masks for some reason, through the ground level entries. They then spend time vomiting and fainting after they entered the show room. (Obviously, the FSB did not inform the MVD about the gas.)

--Niemti (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the ECHR case documents might be using to re-write the article. I suggested the same at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis#A_great_new_summary_of_the_most_important_facts.2Ftheories_from_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights (the article that exists there is mostly my work, but it lack the ECHR find-finding). --Niemti (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And back on the subject, DagosNavy was obviously right and you should apologize to him for that. And for you talking nicely to the fuck-you-guy (aka "IP editor") which now sounds like an insult to DagosNavy and me. Guess what's (or who's) "the bad shit". And you should know only logged-in users are receiving information about new edits in the articles (to revert). --Niemti (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it to ANI, or anywhere, to find out what's more disruptive: their edit, summary and all, or your unexplained revert. That something is in the source isn't the relevant thing here (and it's poor paraphrasing as well as poor writing), what's relevant is your unexplained reverting. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Stupid summary and all ("how may "SBR men"? where were they? moscow vice-mayor, where was he?" - geez I don't know, on Mars maybe?). But yeah, continue taking side of a super-rude troll who's logging off and using various IPs just to screw with and insult people. --Niemti (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, you can now revert your revert. --Niemti (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You missed the part where I also blocked the IP. Your speculation on the IP's intent is noted and whisked off as unfounded. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there mate, I am really sorry to see you blocked. After reviewing the history of the article page may I offer the following advice.

You were edit warring, sorry to be blunt but you were. I am sure you genuinely believed that it was vandalism as a result of the abuse from that editor. The guys behaves in a decidedly unhelpful manner, I've seen him before and he has been doing the same for some time. However, the fact the guy is abusive is not a good reason for reverting him constantly. I agree with Drmies that the content removed was poorly written, so at the outset it was a reasonable edit.

The fact he refuses to engage on the talk page is also not reason for reverting.

My advice, is to first of all cool off. In the 7 years I've known you, I've never seen you behave like that and I was astounded to see it. Secondly, you should appeal the block, acknowledging your mistake in edit warring and give an undertaking not to repeat it. Take it as a learning lesson, there are other ways of dealing with it. You should really have raised it on one of the noticeboards and not taken it all upon yourself. I note all the reverts were done within minutes and you can see you just got caught up in it. There are other editors, if it is really vandalism, let other editors revert him and take it to the 3RR. One abusive IP editor reverted by four editors is clearly edit warring. When there are only two editors it appears to be mutual.

I would suggest when confronted with an editor like that if future, question yourself if your reverting because they're being abusive or because their edits are vandalism.

Take care old friend. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My old mate! How long? Not a catastrophe, but certainly a major issue for me :(
 * I have to confess that this is not the first time I make the mistake of being "carried in a mud fight" as Drmies says. But this time my luck ran out. Ironically, I was blocked for a casual edit on a topic which is beyond my area of interest. I should have close the window, play some tetris online, watch ID investigation and go to bed. Maybe a noticeboard would have been the best way out, and let the admins to deal with the IP. But last night things were from bad to worse, I overreacted to the abusive behavior of this guy and forgot even something so basic as 3RR. Frankly, I am terrible ashamed for being so tactless, but as you wisely noted, this will serve me as a lesson for the future. Next time, if an editor drops an f-bomb to me or to another editor, I will simply ignore they, in the hope that they will be eventually caught by an admin.
 * As for the appeal, well, as you can see it was a half-heartened one, I choose to describe the situation from my point of view rather than to make a fake apology (although I promise not to repeat this kind of behaviour).
 * In Argentina we use to say Amigos son los que están en las buenas y en las malas (A true friend is somebody who is there in the good times and the bad times); thanks for your advise and support, Dear J.- Cheers! Your old friend from Argentina.--Darius (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

War crime
" Restoring text, not enough reason given for removal - Occupation is an act of war, an any crime committed by even a lonely soldier is a war crime"

That is OR at its best. The war ended in 1945, please provide a definition that describes the Second World War lasting until 1952 (when the occupation of Japan ended) 1949 (when the occupation of Western Germany formally ended). Furthermore, that is not the definition of war crime: you cannot make up your own definitions. Please provide a source that states "any crime committed by even a lonely soldier is a war crime".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was not making "my own definitions"; while WWII certainly lasted until 1945, there was an Allied military occupation in Germany from 1945 to 1949. The definition of the Nuremberg Charter defines war crime as "Violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public of private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Well, occupation of enemy territory lasts sometimes decades after a war is over (Western Bank in Palestine, Vukovar in Croatia), as well as the detention of prisoners of war (in the Soviet Union there were WWII POWs well into the 1950s). Therefore, the occupation of Germany (and Japan) was an act of war per this definition, which by the way is in the article's lede. Most crimes of Nazi Germany took place in occupied territories, where the war was not going on and in some cases after an armistice with local authorities was in place (Vichy France, Denmark). Until now, nobody claims that these were not war crimes just because there was not technically "a war" raging in those regions.


 * An individual soldier could commit war crimes (this is also in the lede); if this soldier is Soviet, well, it would be a Soviet war crime; if British, then we have a British war crime.--Darius (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the scholarly definition you completely overlooked: a war crime occurs during an armed conflict. The occupation of Germany took place after the armed conflict had ended. You need a source that specifically states that crimes that took place during the occupation of Germany were war crimes. The source uses does not state that the crime was a war crime. It is clear overreaching.
 * As for an individual soldier, I did not deny that a single soldier cannot commit a war crime. You claimed, and failed to back up or support your assertion, that "any crime committed by even a lonely soldier is a war crime".
 * As for the article: I did not request extended quotations to support the text. I looked up the book and failed to verify any of the information attributed to the source. Hence the tags and hence the explanation inserted into them: that the source needed to be verified. The extended quotes are not helpful, not to mention one of them did not even support the text you claimed it did.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, man, it was just an edit summary, I want it to mean that "a war crime, even if committed by a lonely soldier, is still a war crime"; I can't write a book for every edit I make. I can live with the article in its current status, but I think that those quotes required by yourself should stand for the benefit of readers, not just to support your own position or mine.--Darius (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P/S: I suppose you mean "irrelevant" and not "irreverent" in this summary. Oh, I almost forget what Geneva says about military occupation (see). See also this article from Wikisource. Regards--Darius (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * I have a feeling, based off you bringing up the occupation info (which, don't get me wrong, is a good addition to the definition provided on the article), that deleted information is going to be restored in regards to the occupations of Germany and Japan. I would caution against their adding on the grounds that 1) the sources used (thus far) do not label them as war crimes, and 2) everything I have thus far seen notes that the Fourth Geneva Convention cannot be employed retroactively.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The retroactive use of the Convention is relevant only from a judicial point of view; we're just writing an online encyclopedic article from our 21 century perspective with the bare facts, we aren't lawyers or judges debating whether or not a party is guilty or not. You should also noted that there were criticism at the Nuremberg Trials (see criticism section) regarding violations of human rights (Nazis were nontheless indicted for those crimes). Had we to consider the issue of retroactivity, we should remove the classification of "Nazi War Crimes" from a good number of WP pages. As for the other issue, my opinion is that any breach of the Convention constitutes per se a war crime.--Darius (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The retroactive use of the Convention is relevant only from a judicial point of view; we're just writing an online encyclopedic article from our 21 century perspective with the bare facts, we aren't lawyers or judges debating whether or not a party is guilty or not."
 * Therefore, you cannot label a crime a war crime. We are not lawyers or judges stating what is or what is not a war crime. The sources, for the most part except when it is clear cut, state what is and what is not a war crime. The 4th Geneva Convention is not - as far as I am aware - retroactive (the fact that parts of the Nazi hierarchy were charged with breeches of international law only, then, recently crafted and that the trials faced criticism is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and something I will not venture off into discussion.), the source used does not state when the event took place nor does it state if the act was a war crime or not. In effect, by including it you are acting as the judge and debating who is guilty or not. Its inclusion, and your argument in your final sentence, is a clear case of breeching WP: OR and WP: SYN.
 * If one was so inclined, since - if I am not mistaken - the two sources do not state that any of the rapes committed breeched international law or constituted war crimes, one could argue for the entire section to be pulled especially in light of the UN's position on the subject. The UN only defined rape, during war, as a war crime in 1993. The UN notes "armies considered rape one of the legitimate spoils of war. During World War II, all sides of the conflict were accused of mass rapes, yet neither of the two courts set up by the victorious allied countries to prosecute suspected war crimes — in Tokyo and Nuremberg — recognized the crime of sexual violence." The UN website goes on to note "It was not until 1992, in the face of widespread rapes of women in the former Yugoslavia, that the issue came to the attention of the UN Security Council. On 18 December 1992, the Council declared the "massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, in particular Muslim women, in Bosnia and Herzegovina" an international crime that must be addressed." and "Subsequently, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 1993) included rape as a crime against humanity, alongside other crimes such as torture and extermination, when committed in armed conflict and directed against a civilian population."(UN article on the issue)
 * Thus, the discussion returns to what the sources say (not what we interpret them to mean, or what crimes we believe should be treated as war crimes or serious breeches of international treaties). I should note that I believe rape to be a serious and horrendous crime, and I am not attempting to downplay what happened. But, if the sources do not state post-war attacks were war crimes, then they should not really be included here (and rather in the specific article on the subject). Although I concede that attacks that took place during the war, despite the various definitions to the contrary, should be noted.
 * Based on these arguments, I am going to remove the material re-added. I suggest (considering you advocate its inclusion, and I argue against) that a third party be consulted to look at the issue from an outside perspective.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I agree with having a third part involved. As for the judicial vs. encyclopedic inclusion, my point of view is quite simple; we must deal with this issues from a 2014 perspective, so retroactivity is immaterial here. If rape (which, by the way, is an act of violence against protected civilians) is a war crime today, then it shall be included in this or any other article dealing with war crimes.--Darius (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have trained in the field of history: we cannot judge the people of the past for their moral failings, by the rules, laws and standards of today. Otherwise we would be going around calling the Romans war criminals for the (historical meaning or literal modern meaning) The Rape of the Sabine Women, the enslavement of their vanquished foes, or the what could be argued to be the genocide of the Carthaginians.
 * The article, for the most part, should stick to what the sources call war crimes, what have been alleged to be war crimes, what are clear violations of the rules of war at the time, and with some leniency to other topics.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that we are not editing Wikipedia in order to judge people, but to present the bare facts; while is true that there was nothing like "war crime" at the time of the Romans (the ius gentium may be an exception, and the destruction of Carthage is considered a genocide by several modern authors), by the time of the Allied occupation of Germany, attacks on civilians by occupation troops had been certainly perceived as war crimes, not matter if verbal abuse, beating, rape or murder, since the "Rape of Belgium" in 1914.--Darius (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P/S: I found this interesting chapter of the Hague convention of 1907 regarding military occupation (see here).--Darius (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters
Hello. Thank you so much for using VisualEditor. Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters…" tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:
 * Do you normally use a character inserter? Which character sets are useful to you?  Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
 * How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
 * Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
 * How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
 * How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
 * The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters?  If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
 * Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
 * Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes.

Please leave your views on the MediaWiki feedback page (your regular username/password works there), or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Scuttling, etc.
Normally, when your bold edit is reverted, you need to discuss your changes on the talk page. Can you explain why you think the enlisted crews were more responsible for the scuttling rather than von Reuter and the rest of the officer corps? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never asserted that the "enlisted crew" were "more responsible" than Admiral von Reuter or his subordinate officers for the scuttling; I was just following the main article about Scapa Flow where you can read: "A further reduction of crews with the departure of two transports to Germany on 18 June 1919 meant that von Reuter was left with reliable men to carry out preparations. (van der Vat. The Grand Scuttle. p. 167.)" This means that von Reuter got rid of mutinous and 'red' elements who could have resisted or ignored the orders to sink the fleet, thus the remaining skeleton crews were loyal enough to execute his plans. I just stressed the fact that von Reuters and the officers corps could hardly have scuttled the Hochseeflotte without the assistance of committed ratings.--Darius (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Request a favour old friend
Could you look over User:Wee Curry Monster/José María Pinedo and comment on my translation of bearing in mind I have tried to expand with English language texts. Thanks, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

PS makes a change you correcting my Spanish ....
 * Thanks mate, my Spanish is a bit embarassing for someone who is half-Spanish on my mother's side. Think I have a complex about speaking Spanish as cousins teased me mercilessly for speaking Spanish with a Glaswegian accent.  I did struggle with the vocabulary in that translation particularly the military stuff.  Your help is very much appreciated.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I check something with you. In the Imperial Spanish Army, I have read (but typically can't find it) the rank of sargento mayor is the equivalent of a Brevet Major and the translation of Sargeant Major indicated by most translation services is incorrect.  Most of the English language sources I've seen refer to Major Mestivier.   Would you have a more reliable information on that by any chance, I can always try WT:MILHIST. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again I am in your debt, I think I've finished drafting but am slightly concerned about the lack of inline citations on the es.wikipedia article. Whilst I've added what I can I would be grateful for any help you can offer in improving the coverage.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My Dear J, the lack of inline citations (or even reliable references) is a pervading problem on es:WP. I will search on Google books to improve the future article. I will ad all the info I can find to your sandbox as soon as possible.--Darius (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy and added some inline citations, would appreciate you giving them a once over to confirm I've got it right. Another favour, would you have any idea where I can find someone with knowledge of the ARA Sarandí in 1833. I'm not convinced the information on the es.wikipedia article is 100% correct as the armament seems to conflict with the testimony at Pinedo's court martial. This indicates 8 x 8 pdr guns and a pedrero, which were pea shooters against the 16 x 32 pdr carronades on the Clio (the information on es.wikipedia confirmed by another source shows a heavier armament). It puts it into perspective why Pinedo chose to avoid the bloodbath that would have ensued. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've corrected it, it seems to match the documents at Pinedo's court martial quite well so it seems to be plausible. Thanks for your help, it does confirm the claims of being outgunned and puts them into a stark perspective.  BTW the broadside weight would have been (at best) 1 x 16 pdr and 3 x 8 pdr = 40 lbs, compared with 8 x 32 = 256 lbs  (only half the guns could bear).  The Clio would have turned the Sarandi to matchwood in minutes.  It really does show Pinedo would never have stood a chance and made the right decision.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Castillo Olite
The correct name of the ship was "Castillo Olite" and not "Castillo de Olite". There are many newspaper articles and photos of the ship which confirm this. See and. In many Spanish towns there are streets named after the ship and they are all "Castillo Olite". A few authors have used "Castillo de Olite" because it sounds more usual but they are mistaken. There was also another ship "Castillo Peñafiel" which managed to get away in time. 2.137.141.249 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Castillo de Olite" is the more common name used in books, essays and newspaper articles for both, the ship and the castle itself (search both names on Google). In these cases, Wikipedia gives prominence to the majority viewpoint (see WP:WEIGHT), i.e., "Castillo de Olite".--Darius (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that is correct. A Google search only shows how often the words appear but not in reference to what so that is useless for this purpose. Newspaper articles and books use almost invariably the correct "Castillo Olite", specially the major and more authoritative. See, , , ,. I have not seen any *major* Spanish newspaper use "Castillo de Olite". Can you show a few links to recent major newspapers and books? 2.137.141.249 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I just gave you my opinion, feel free to change the article's name by yourself. Regards.--Darius (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinedo
Just launched the article, I gave you a co-author credit on the DYK nomination. Thanks for your help old buddy. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you, J., the credit is all yours. Congratulations!.--Darius (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of lakes
Hallo DagosNavy, please be careful with moving articles about lakes containing "lake". Smaller lakes tend to have the term "lake" behind the name. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk occupations
I suggest you help edit on the Donetsk People's Republic article since it's the main article for the rebel movement in Donetsk. Could use some help and you seem to be on top of stuff.--Львівське (говорити) 23:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me for the job, but IMHO we should wait at least a couple of days until the situation, both on the ground and in the discussion page became more clear. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ah, but you're posting content on that one page already so what's the difference? either way, keep it up, had no idea those 2 cities you just cited had militants in them yet, neither have any news outlets touched it --Львівське (говорити) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
I noticed that you've replaced non-English language sources with English ones. Please don't do this. It is good to have an English language source, but both sources should be kept. Don't jettison out the old source when you add the English one. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources restored, thanks for the tip.--Darius (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for your work on the timeline. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your article
Had a quick peek but couldn't see much wrong, can you point me at the assessment? WCM email 15:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinedo Article
Just to let you know the article you helped me write is in the DYK queue to be listed today at 18:23 London time. Regards, WCM email 14:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The credit is all yours, J., Congrats!--Darius (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for José María Pinedo
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads Up
Bringing this to your attention, seems to be some really petty BS going on. WCM email 15:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry mate, I will take care of this matter.--Darius (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Trento-1935.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trento-1935.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been inducted into the Order of Yaroslav the Wise!
Thanks mate for this unexpected honour, I promise to keep the page updated as long as I can. Cheers!--Darius (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of death of Col. Rafael Raúl Reyes is wrong.
The the sources I've come across say Reyes was killed on 11 February 1976 and not the following month as the page maintain. Also the following newspaper clipping https://es-es.facebook.com/38353368582/photos/a.493246503582.259034.38353368582/10151091505733583/?type=1&permPage=1 states En diciembre de 1975 fue destinado al Grupo de Artilleria de Defensa Aerea 601 en Mar del Plata; ascendió a teniente primero el 31 del mismo mes y año. So clearly First Lieutenant Fernando Cativa Tolosa was a member of GADA 601. Maybe we can invite people from CELTYV or better still, people that served with him to verify. I would be more than happy to email the people of CELTYV and get someone to confirm and write back to you via this page. It would be interesting to know that if CELTYV and the following website http://www.mardelplata-ayer.com.ar/basedelejercito.html got it wrong in claiming that Toloso was a member of GADA 601, then what unit did he really belong to?''--Superbazuca (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * CELTYV is hardly a reliable source, since his partisan nature failed WP:BIASED. Your points, however, make sense. Col. Reyes was certainly killed on 11 February, maybe I heard from my mother when I was a boy that he was ambushed barely 150m from Santa Cecilia school, where his daughter was a student. I was misled by the fact that her story suggested that he was bringing the girl to school at the time. The summer break in Argentina lasts until March, so I gave for granted that Díaz Bessone (the original source I cited) was wrong by a month. The majority of sources, however, confirms that the correct date was 2/11.
 * As for Cativa Tolosa, attached or not, he was certainly under the orders of GADA's commander, thus his killing is worth to be included in the article. Nevertheless, I am for citing http://www.mardelplata-ayer.com.ar/basedelejercito.html instead of CELTYV, for the reasons I mentioned above. Regards.--Darius (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)