User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 16

Your GA nomination of Malinska-class mining tender
The article Malinska-class mining tender you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Malinska-class mining tender for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67, this hasn't actually failed; what's happened is that when you renamed the article and talk page to Albona-class minelayer, you didn't also rename the review page, so the review page still has the old name, and the bot can't find it. I just tried to do the rename myself, but it wouldn't let me move Talk:Malinska-class mining tender/GA1 to Talk:Albona-class minelayer/GA1. You or Parsecboy, if you can't move the page yourself, may need to get an admin to do it for you. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just succeeded in moving it. All should be well going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could do an article about Counter-Insurgency ops. I would appreciate it, and it would be a great addition to Military aviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak474 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Operation Infinite Reach
Hello! I hope that all is well. I am planning on nominating this article for FA imminently, and I was interested if you could give me your opinion on a couple of questions:


 * Should the U.S. News and World Report citations be included in the bibliography at all?


 * What other fixes do you think I ought to make before submitting the FA nomination?

Thanks very much for your time and help,

GABgab 01:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bajo Pivljanin
Hi! Thanks for reviewing the article. Where do you want me to put the comments?--Z oupan 12:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can ** them after each comment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine Military History task force
As an incubator tier task force, we reached 4 active members and 1 sporadic, with one that is retired but may return, I followed the instructions of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and made all of the necessary categories, an infobox and the templates, I was wondering who I should ask to include us in the talk page template, I have already added the baseline of |Roman= to the template, but have not touched the underlying code to make it work. Thanks. Iazyges (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest having a word with, he is the guru on such things. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Iazyges (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Prolific sock-master
The sock-master Asdisis has been plaguing Balkan-related articles for about two months now with a plethora of single-person accounts, mostly at Talk:Nikola Tesla and Talk:Novak Djokovic, but now appears to be stalking me with comments at the AN/I that Crovata recently opened. I complained to another admin, but they said nothing could be done to curb the IPs for "privacy reasons". The accounts in question are these:
 * 1) 89.164.174.221
 * 2) 89.164.128.37
 * 3) 89.164.138.228
 * 4) 82.214.103.5
 * 5) 141.138.54.39
 * 6) 141.136.213.92

I may have missed a couple. These are all probably socks of Searcher11, who was in turn a sock of Asdisis. All push the same agenda and all swarm to the same article discussions at similar periods. No one has done anything in months. Immediate action is required. 23 editor (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPs are too wide for a block, and both articles are semi'd. I'll have a look at the individual IPs though. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a million. 23 editor (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Otto Kittel
I don't have much skin in this article but have you seen the editing on Otto Kittel? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

IK-3
No, I just re-assessed it. If you don't want to complete the process I can do it. I was a bit previous in adding the review, sorry, but it is not a problem. All the issues have been addressed and it is now ready.--Petebutt (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav destroyer Beograd
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav destroyer Beograd you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana
The article Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Judah
Sorry to bother you, PM. Just curious if you think that Judah is an "avid Serbophile" and "supporter of the Serb cause". Maybe I didn't get the memo. Yours truly, 23 editor (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Judah? I'd like to see an academic review that says that... The only negative comments I'm aware of are that he is biased against Serbs (and that was by Charles Simić, it is referenced in Judah's article). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic update
FYI, I went ahead and used your exact RFC recommendations in Djokovic's parents. It looked like a good compromise between having the info (but not in the lead), and keeping it short and sweet. Sadly, it's already been changed once. I changed it back but I doubt it will hold. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest ANI regarding that one editor, based on failure to accept consensus. Good luck with it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Croatian nationalists trying to push an agenda, and reference is not valid. His father is Serbian, and his mother also, she is born in Belgrade, Serbia (than Yugoslavia). We have a 3 IP socks who vote. Please, should not be allowed to some Croatian nationalists to destroy article.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Listen mate, there was consensus as I outlined, and there are reliable sources for it. Just because you don't personally agree with it is neither here nor there. Take a breath. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I welcome your ruling here, however I wouldn't like to insert something that sources aren't saying. Could you please explain where did you get the info about Novak's grandparents when you said that Novak's mother is of Croatian parentage. As I see sources are not saying anything about her parents or origin. They are saying that she is a Croat. For all we know, her parentage is Serbian or something else, sources simply don't rely there. The same goes about Novak's father. Some editors are complaining and that may be justified. Novak's father can have Serbian origin. We don't have sources on that, but sources are saying that he is Montenegrin. Thank You. you can maybe help as you have posted those sources. I also do think that origins of his parents is a bit too trivial for inclusion. Even many had complained that Novak's ethnicity/origins/parentage is too much to include.89.164.177.205 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mate, there are enough IPs wandering around that article to form a committee. While it isn't compulsory, having an editing history is important for other editors to take your contributions seriously. So please sign your comments or get an account. Also, please read the sources that were used in the RfC. Your comments above indicate you haven't. Having an "origin" or "background" says nothing about someone's parents. If you think the wording could be tightened to match the sources even more closely, have that discussion on the talk page of the article. My suggested wording was exactly that, a suggestion. If you can do better, fill your boots. But be very careful there with edit warring, I know I'm not the only admin watching that article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know why my ip changes so much but its not up to me. It would be easier if it didn't. I already accepted the suggestion so I started signing my comments. Ok, I made a suggestion when starting an edit request. I can't edit the article so I won't have problems with edit warring. Thanks for clarification, but I still think that the formulation speaks more about Novak's grandparents. I don't read such claims in the sources. The 3 mains sources say: "My mother in a Croat from Vinkovci, and father Monteneigran", "You may not know, but his (Novak) mother is Croatian" ,"The truth is that my wife is Croatian.". I've already stated that in the discussion. I completely agree with your edit ,but I made a request that wouldn't speak of ethnic background of Novak's parents as I think that is the case. Ok, thanks for your answer. Kavonder 08:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.108.202 (talk)

Talk page
Again, sorry to bother you with some dumb Balkan quarrel, but can you semi-protect Talk:Novak Djokovic for about a week so IPs can't edit? The place has become infested with Asdisis and (probable) Soundwaweserb socks, making any level-headed discussion impossible. 23 editor (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You should also drop the stick, the RfC is over. The thing you did here is plain disruptive: . You can't modify a closed RfC by crossing other editor's comments, then demand that RfC is reevaluated without the things you had deleted. History also shows that you were deleting valid sources posted by other people at the start of that discussion. Don't do that and drop the stick. I've left that discussion and I won't post unless someone tries to change the article against the consensus. You should do the same. Kavonder 21:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You should also stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you that he is a sock. You are being very disruptive to the people who are discussing in good faith. Kavonder 21:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.247.43 (talk)


 * Hi 23. While I'm happy with semi-protecting article space (and someone else beat me to the punch there), I am loath to do it in talk space, despite my general prejudice against short-term IPs who refuse to create an account. You don't have to engage with ppl on talk. If they have a problem with the close, they can challenge it per usual procedures, which has already been suggested. I'm not aware that anyone has done that, as I would expect any reviewing admin would do the right thing and advise me. I'd suggest ignoring them. If there is any edit warring after the current block is lifted, I expect there will be several admins that will take swift action. What is going on there is just disruption and IDHT. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. 23 editor is just not dropping the stick? Could you look at this. I wouldn't want to go to edit warring and it seems he's fully prepared to do so. I guess he's trying to provoke me to do so, so the talk page is protected. I won't revert him as I'm leaving this to your judgement. Thanks. Kavonder 17:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.224.19 (talk)

Yeah, there we go. . Kavonder 18:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.150.27 (talk)

Your GA nomination of Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service
The article Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator
Hi Peacemaker67. I got your note, but I'm not sure if you want me to help nominate a coordinator or to stand election as a coordinator. Djmaschek (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to consider nominating yourself as a coordinator. You'd certainly have my support! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Book review guidelines
Hi, I enjoyed your latest book review. I am an avid reader and have a fair number of books recently read within the scope of WP MilHist, so would like to contribute with reviews of any of those still not yet reviewed. Where can I find the WP's guidelines for doing so, and the process to follow to publish my review? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ben Shepherd
I hope his book is better than War in the Wild East, that was atrociously repetitive and abysmally copy-edited. Keith-264 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You should borrow it and have a read, I'd be interested in your impression of it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion but it may take while. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

GA review
Hi Peacemaker. I see that someone else took over the Rogozarski review. I very much regret that I was unable to finish the review—please accept my sincerest apologies. As I mentioned on my talk page, some real-life issues unexpectedly arose, leaving me with no spare time to do anything here. Unfortunately, things like that happen sometimes, and I'm afraid I have no control over it. Thank you for understanding. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 17:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No prob, these things happen. I've asked for a 2O, but the review is still yours, so if you have anything further to add, it would be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

About Userpage design...
Hey, I'm a newish user and I wanted to know if there were any tools or tips anywhere I could use to design my userpage instead of building a brick wall out of userboxes. --Vami IV (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Deus Vult!
 * Sorry, that's how I did it... And I also copied some of the formatting from another user's page... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm kinda bummed...
Sorry to see that you didn't stand for re-election as a MILHIST coordinator this year; but I totally understand that the job can be a lug on other things that one wants or need to do with life. Thanks for your service to the project. And, while I'm at it, thank you for your service as an Aussie digger in keeping the boogyman from destroying what passes for freedom in this cruel world... Cuprum17 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. I'll be back, just needed a break. Should have taken one last year probably. I'm just going to concentrate on content for a year and see how I feel this time next year. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RE Stevo Rađenović
Is the section header supposed to be Srb uprising or Serb uprising? Quis separabit? 06:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The former. It is a work in progress. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016
Hello. Thanks for closing the RfC, but I just wanted to double-check whether the closing statement was correct – you noted that the WP:NC-GAL guides us to use the demonym, but then said that the articles should be moved to "Taiwan xxx elections" rather than the demonym version "Taiwanese xxx elections". Could you clarify? Cheers, Number   5  7  10:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day. Sure thing. I took into account the arguments questioning the validity of "Taiwanese" as an appropriate demonym for things proper to the Republic of China, and also the fact that both the United States and United Kingdom "xxx elections" use one of the common names of the nation-state instead of the demonym for valid reasons. To my mind, these two things combined with the consensus of those that voted and made arguments made it appropriate to diverge from the guidance of WP:NC-GAL in this case. I'm sorry if I didn't make my closure reasoning clearer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, could I ask you to review the close. I agree there was a clear consensus for the move away from "Republic of China", but I can still see no consensus for Taiwan over Taiwanese. Arguments were made for both by a roughly equal number of editors, with several others simply supporting the move proposal as it stood (i.e. for the demonym). There was no killer argument in favour of avoiding following the guideline (you note arguments were made regarding British and American elections, but the fact that elections in the Republic of Ireland use "Irish" was raised as a counter-argument) so I would have expected the closure to go in line with the actual proposal. Cheers, Number   5  7  13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think the close was good in avoiding the demonym. Consistency isn't everything. I gave greater weight to the arguments for Taiwan over Taiwanese because I thought they were stronger than those for Taiwanese. In particular, that the examples of United States/American and United Kingdom/British were significantly stronger than the counter-argument of Republic of Ireland/Irish. Of course, you can always ask for a review. I won't be offended. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks – what would be the best place to do so? Cheers, Number   5  7  09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a consensus on the "best" place, but I suggest WP:AN. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer
Can you check if removal of info from the article is justified. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also check deletions to Knight's Cross recipients of JG 54 and Top German World War II Aces. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look into my question yet? You may find this link to the German Federal Archives useful. The Federal Archives have started digitizing the KC nomination and approval/rejection documents. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi MB, I'm not going to get involved with this, as I have a bad case of tennis elbow (literally), and can barely type. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Srb uprising
Speaking of the Srb uprising (can't believe there is a Croatian city called "Srb"!!) -- can you explain this very confusing excerpt: Nevertheless, Croatian authorities, under the organization of the Independent Democratic Serb Party (SDSS) still commemorate this date as the first day of an antifascist uprising. Some politicians in Croatia, including the President[who?] of the Croatian Party of Rights have condemned this commemoration.[28] The "anti-gathering" [clarification needed] in Srb is organized every year as a sign of protest against the commemoration.[clarification needed] The commemoration was always attended by members of the state leadership. Former president Stjepan Mesić was at the 2012 commemoration and called members of the "anti-gathering" the "quasi-patriots".[29] However, members of the state leadership were not present at the commemoration in 2012.[3][better source needed]

TO WIT:
 * 1) "Croatian authorities, under the organization of the Independent Democratic Serb Party (SDSS) still commemorate this date" -- *2) "Former president Stjepan Mesić was at the 2012 commemoration and called members of the 'anti-gathering' the 'quasi-patriots'" -- wasn't Mesić the guy who gave "a speech in Australia in the early 1990s, where he said that the Croats 'won a victory on April 10th' (when the fascist aligned Independent State of Croatia was formed) 'as well as in 1945' (when the communist anti-fascists prevailed and the Socialist Republic of Croatia was formed), as well as that Croatia needed to apologize to no one for the Jasenovac concentration camp (i.e. the WWII Holocaust against Serbs and Jews)" (per Mesić article) -- so why would he be attending an Independent Democratic Serb Party antifascist commemoration?
 * 3) "However, members of the state leadership were not present at the commemoration in 2012" -- this I understand and is unsurprising but do you know anything about the years since 2012, perchance. Seems unlikely they would skip 2012, and attend from 2013-2016, IMHO.are there really still Croatian authorities under the auspices of the Independent Democratic Serb Party?

Thanks, Quis separabit?  22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I really don't know enough about the Srb uprising as yet. I only became properly aware of it as a result of starting the Radjenovic article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bother you again in a week or so about it. I was going to use the verb "nag", but then I was afraid it might mean something different in Australian English than it does in the USA. Quis separabit?  23:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So, are there really still Croatian authorities under the auspices of the I checked the Independent Democratic Serb Party article which is unsourced and outdated. If the party still exists it is essentially irrelevant, IMHO, like Republicans in New England or Unionists in the Republic of Ireland, IMO. Quis separabit?  22:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Djokovic question
Hi, in regards to the section about Djokovic's parents ethnicity, I think it is quite unjustified to close this section while leaving highly controversial thing is in, particularly as the consensus that was reached on the topic is far from clear as is the strength of the arguments on the side of "Croat-Montenegrin" origin of his parents. Novak himself never said anything about his mother being Croatian (except in Croatian right-wing tabloid "Slobodna Dalmacija" which is used in this topic as the only source of such a claim, and a Slovenian tabloid which just copy pastes the same text). Anyways, other then the fact that the source of this information is not credible at all, I think it is quite unnecessary to put anything about Novak's parents' ethnicity in the article as it will only cause more tension and nothing good will come of it. Again I must say if Djokovic said "my mother is Croatian" anywhere else except in some fictional conversation mentioned by a Croatian tabloid nobody would have anything against it, but this is just wrong. Cheers, Azarapat8 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day. I think my explanation of the closure accords with the sources provided and the arguments made there. I don't propose to re-state those arguments here. Of course, you are free to ask for a review of my closure of that RfC, which would be best done at WP:AN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Yugoslav Navy
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal Yugoslav Navy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting awards
I will like to add few things about K.e.coffman. He have no interest in building the military history encyclopedia, and is here to just deleting information and push for his own agenda, that is reduction of Nazi era military articles to the point of absurdity (because there were nazi and don't deserve for people to know "intricate" details of their life, or worst their military deeds). If you don't agree with him, he is calling his "friends" (such as ÄDA - DÄP, sometimes Kierzek and others) and start accusing editors, who disagree with him, admirer for the "neo-nazi".

I will like to put an example: he started removing awards from German military personnel during WWII, for the reason, I guess, it wasn't cited or cited to a neo-nazi ??writers??, while in reality that was probably put in the article in good faith many years ago by someone who forgot or bothered to cite. Even so if we take him serious, what he call neo-nazi publisher, surely there is stuff that's strictly factual like organizational data or movements, awards etc., is unlikely to be tainted?

Please see the edits by him on Theodor Scherer: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodor_Scherer&type=revision&diff=741679416&oldid=741670600 and look at ==Awards and decorations==.

What is the point of these? There are cited or in other cases is he bothered to check for sources? I looked at List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War II, and checked to find that the list contains persons who don't have citation source for their decorations such as Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal etc. and if we take what K.e.coffman is doing we should delete them all unsourced award or decorations. This must stop. HicManebimusOptime (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks very much. And well done on being elected to the coord team! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

SMS Körös
Hello.

I know that it was about the language, one obvious reason being that there is no such thing as "Austrian English".

But can you explain to me why a ship in the Austria-Hungary navy should be written in Australian English? Australia is on the other side of the world, for god's sake!

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, it is hardly going to be in Austrian English, is it? The purpose of all of these templates is to make sure that people don't just change the spelling of words to suit their own version of English (American, British, Canadian etc), and respect the editor that bothered to write the article, regardless of what version of English they used to do it. I wrote it in Australian English, which varies from British English in a number of ways, and has since 1788. So, just leave it as it is. It's pretty straightforward. I failt to see why you would bother to try to change it or care about what version of English was used. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I said, wasn't it? "There's no such thing as Austrian English".
 * It's not about which version the article was (originally) written in, but which version it should be written in, following some kind of logic. If you set about writing an article about an American WWI ship, you would hardly use Australian English, would you?
 * And that has nothing to do with "respect" for the editor.
 * Although Australia fought in WWI, there's nothing in the article that connects to Australia, so, given that both Austria and Hungary are in Europe, the most logical choice would be British English.
 * Cheers.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just butting in, while I agree that Britain is geographically closer to Austria than Australia, I don't think that matters so much when it comes to varieties of English in this case. If PM, an Australian editor, writes an article on a British subject, it behoves him to use BritEng, and if he writes on an American subject, then AmEng; but if he writes on an Austrian subject then I think he's entitled to use the variety of English he's most familiar with, and that should be respected per ENGVAR unless consensus is against it (which it doesn't appear to be thus far). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ({tps}) Interested in languages: I do write British English, with dmy date format, when a subject is European, and in American English, with mdy, when American. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, there doesn't seem to be an "appropriate" (ie MOS:STRONGNAT) version of English, except in a ridiculously remote geographical sense, so the version it was written in seems fair. I also write articles about WWII Yugoslavia in Australian English, and I also think that should be respected, and not changed arbitrarily because some editor thinks another version is more suitable. English might have one parent, but it has many children. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I guess what you're saying is that, if PM67 were to write an article on an American topic, he wouldn't need the respect he mentioned?
 * You know, this will not be the first time; many editors are logical, and will – like I did – ask themselves "Why on earth would this article be written in Australian English?", and challenge that.
 * But never mind, it's not a big thing to me, I thought PM's change was a mistake, given that the article is on an Austrian(-Hungarian) topic.
 * Btw, did you notice that you broke WP:BRD? You were reverted; you shouldn't have reverted back, but started a discussion.
 * See you around.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Yugoslav Navy
The article Royal Yugoslav Navy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Yugoslav Navy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a G'day
So Nick-D have totally embraced K.e.coffman and started working together to remove as much as possible military history of Nazi Germany from Wikipedia. Introducing several reasons, such as questionable numbers, nazi propaganda, dubious, intricate detail, he is not noticable and so many no time to write.

REDACTED

He seems spending a massive amount of time mocking the prose in existing articles, or complaining about to much positivity in Nazi military history and not enough negativity. Then venting his frustrations at the so called "obstructionist editors". He always is calling his "friends" (those who have total sympathy for him and his efforts to eredicate information about military history of Nazi Germany), to make sure he wins everytime! He is still trying to recrute editors in his crusade, but you're not on his wish list, for some reasons. He is still adding crappy or NPOV prose on his page; making sure editors are marked as nazi apologist. He makes good of conviction that Wikipedia is not a good source to even find sources on certain subjects, because of the inherent bias of some editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HicManebimusOptime (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reported the attempted doxing above at ANI Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't give it the thought it needed. Should have done it myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Axis–Yugoslav Pact
In case you missed it... a new article has popped up. I don't really see a need for it myself, given the existence of Tripartite Pact and Yugoslav coup d'état. —Srnec (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like another content fork we could do without, I've watchlisted it for now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Yugoslav service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
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) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rogožarski IK-3
The article Rogožarski IK-3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rogožarski IK-3 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Biblioworm -- Biblioworm (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Orjen MTBs
I'm afraid Fraccaroli isn't of much help here. He doesn't mention anything about the boats original armament, just their configuration in Italian service. Even there, he doesn't make the distinction if any of it was the original armament retained by the Regia Marina, or was it all completely newly installed. For example, he mentions that MS 45 and 46 had a single 15 mm/38 MG, but doesn't elaborate if those were left over from their service in the JKRM or newly installed by the Italians. Now, regarding Brescia, while I was writing the Description section, I based it on the data from Conway's 1947–1995 which makes no mention of a 15 mm MG. However, now that you've asked me about it, I also checked the 1940 edition of Jane's Fighting Ship's (p. 517) and they actually do mention a "1 M.G. AA" (machine gun, anti-aircfat). Things can get a bit more confusing when you actually take a look at the pictures of the boats that are available online. Here, for example, is one of the boats without any kind of MG, while on this one you can clearly see a 40 mm Bofors on the stern and a machine gune-like setup on the aft, just above the torpedo tube. My wild guess would be that they lacked the MGs upon delivery, only to have them installed later during their service. I'd suggest stating both; according to Conway's, a single Bofors and TTs were their only armament, while according to Brescia and Jane's, they were also equipped with a MG.

I'm glad to see you're moving forward with getting the article to A-class. Feel free to ask if I can help in any way.--Saxum (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've faithfully reflected the sources now. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jastrebarsko concentration camp
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jastrebarsko concentration camp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jastrebarsko concentration camp
The article Jastrebarsko concentration camp you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jastrebarsko concentration camp for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clean Sweep


Well, I'd say that is definitely a clean sweep, so in honor of your Spring Cleaning (or Autumn Cleaning, depending on where you are in the world) I hereby do present you with this lovely photograph of a broom - and its associated handlers :) TomStar81 (Talk) 13:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Spring Cleaning here Tom. I had wanted to get to that job before I finished up as a coord but had to wait for Hawkeye to tweak the bot. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article
Hey PM67, you wouldn't happen to have access to digital articles of the Guardian through Keesings or Highbeam would you? I'm trying to get my hands on Ian Traynor "Croat Aggression 'Seeks to Build on Peace Plan Gains'" The Guardian, 3 February, 1993. --Potočnik (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:47.203.153.143
This IP user has been making dicey and dubious edits about WWII and Yugoslavia, which have all been reverted (mostly by you and I). Do you recommend I go to ANI for a block; as an admin you can do it yourself. The IP has stopped and I left 2 warnings on his/her (pbly "his") talk page. But he or she might return. Quis separabit? 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite odd editing. I'm not sure there is enough there for ANI, and I can't use my tools as I am involved. If it continues, ANI is an option. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again he's at it. If factually incorrect, grounds for vandalism, IMO. Quis separabit?  21:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav destroyer Beograd
The article Yugoslav destroyer Beograd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Beograd for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Rogožarski IK-3
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Kotor and Pula
Hey do you have anything on the activities of Kotor and Pula under the Titoists? I ask because the South Africans bought three of the other W-class DDs and it would be pretty easy for me to deal with the rest of the class as well. If not, I'll probably just do the basic description para and fill out whatever else is there up to B-class. Postwar activities for all of them, except the South African ships, will, I expect, be scarce enough to put GA out of reach, which would be disappointing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day Sturm, sorry, I have little on post-war Yugoslav ships except where I've hunted it down because they were previously used during the war. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather thought so, but I just thought I'd check. C'est la guerre!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb
The article Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beograd-class destroyer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beograd-class destroyer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beograd-class destroyer
The article Beograd-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beograd-class destroyer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisans
Hey!

I posted something on the Yugoslav Partisans Talk Page, would love for you to LMK what you think!

Thanks! Ogsarticuno (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A class with swords

 * Thanks Iazyges! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

contrary editors
Hi there

I've read with increasing dismay the discussion on the Joachim Helbig talkpage, and your increasing frustration with Coffman's editing. Its a small relief that I am not alone with having difficulty with his complete inability to see/read reason into discussions, and his unilateral deletion of large tracts of pages on Luftwaffe biographies that I, and a number of careful researchers have put together, is very dispiriting. His whole mantra relies on following the letter of the Wiki-law and demanding that we prove our case rather than giving the benefit of the doubt. In a McCarthy-ist fervour he shows remarkable disdain for anything foreign and on-line despite the webpages citing a large array of the same RS books as used in published materials. I have found extreme value in sites such as http://www.luftwaffe.cz/ (Czech), http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/ases.htm (Brazil), http://www.ww2.dk/lwoffz.html but because they're not written by Americans about Americans they must be in inherently untrustworthy in his eyes.

We've crossed swords on articles such as Karl Schnörrer Wolfgang Späte Günther Seeger Reinhard Seiler [Günter Steinhausen] where he sees no value in supporting data or information, systematically working his way through my edits that I started at 'S'. Having checked his contribution page it shows a staggering amount of edits (100+) every day non-stop, and checking the timestamps, almost dawn to dusk. It appears his written articles are about naval history yet now he goes touting himself as a worthy editor of air warfare. His myopic view is that every German soldier must have been a Nazi and was certain to have hidden war-crimes in his history, whereas the American and British soldiers were holy warriors on a noble crusade beyond reproach, which is dangerously naïve and downright offensive, and as any researcher with half a brain will know, war is never so black and white. The biggest frustration is that its relatively easy to find articles on Allied pilots that contradict his very arguments on article-formatting, so it is obviously a anti-German grudge he holds. I just wish we can find a way to muzzle him and stop his arbitrary vandalism - I believe if he had his way every German biography would be left as a stub article, or written in a tone reminiscent of the very poor military literature of the 50s and 60s. Its a sad day when Wikipedia is ru Philby NZ (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)led by the loudest voice with the most time on his hands and the rest of us, acting in good faith, are held to ransom. Philby NZ (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I understand your frustrations. I would also say that most online resources such as the ones you mention do not meet our reliability requirements. However, in my view, coffmann sets a highly idiosyncratic bar at a height far higher than WP does, and by doing so he is actually damaging the encyclopedia. His editing behaviour is tendentious, and I have no doubt that if he continues, he will eventually strike a hurdle in that regard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uskok-class torpedo boat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uskok-class torpedo boat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uskok-class torpedo boat
The article Uskok-class torpedo boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uskok-class torpedo boat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 for TFA

 * Hi Peacemaker. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 15, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/December 15, 2016. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:70.161.248.15
See Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wasn't aware of that one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T7
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy" table tweak.
The format change I made to the tables to make the entries at the top of their respective columns was done because on the long tables, having to scroll halfway down to see the origin entry isn't helpful. It enhances readability, in my opinion. It's hardly a make or break matter though. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually thought it made less readable. But I agree, it is not that big a deal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

 * Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T5
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Miramar access: renewal
Peacemaker67, I just sent you an email about Miramar, but then noticed you want to renew rather than re-request. Please hold off on doing anything while I figure out if the two processes are the same or different. We onlyhave a very limited number of Miramar accesses granted. Thanks! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've sent off your request data; it would be helpful to me if you would ping me when you rec'v the renewal from Miramar... Tks! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had the free 7-day access, not the WP one. Will let you know when I get the renewal. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently you had the WP one because your name is on our records (?). Anyhow, you've got mail... Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T7
The article Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T5
The article Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your support of my lengthy TBAN
Hello, I saw that under my appeal you posted this: "If HT is capable of editing neutrally and constructively in a less contentious area, I say let's see evidence of that." Since I don't want to exceed my 500 word statement by posting on the AE board, I offer you these diffs as evidence that I am perfectly capable of editing neutrally and constructively:, ,,,,,,,. And these are just some actual article edits, although I could provide many more examples of my playing well with others in the talk pages. My hope is that you will take a quick look and reconsider your support of my very lengthy ban, and agree with the consensus (save for two users) that I do not need to be benched for a further 6 months to better abide by the rules. It is the contentious nature of the political pages and the recency of the 2016 election (when emotions on all sides were still running high) that I chose to venture into those waters, perhaps unprepared for the high standards of WP:BLP and WP:BATTLEGROUND expected of editors. However, if you read my statement, I am confident that you will come to the conclusion that I am unusually qualified for a repeal of my ban. Thank you for reading. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of BLP violations
What a BLP violating battleground this has become! In one of TTAAC's many attacks against another of this brothers, he said that anyone editing BLP articles shouldn't be allowed to do so if they slander political figures (read the subject heading of this edit). Well then, by his own logic he should be indeffed from political pages involving American politics. In fact, he even went as far as slandering his own President by accusing Obama (without evidence) of being the Muslim founder of a major terrorist organization: The exact quote - "Classic NYT propaganda. Flynn was forced out for warning Obama—the "Founder of ISIS"—to stop!" This is beyond the pale, and this unstable mindset of his own doing has clearly spilled onto his own AE. I can't think of a greater BLP violation that accusing the President of the United States, without evidence, of being the creator of a homicidal terrorist group. That conspiracy theory slander alone implies the President himself is a homicidal maniac, considering that ISIS murders innocents for sport. Talk about BLP violation! I would agree with TTAAC then that anyone who is editing political articles about living people shouldn't be allowed to do so if they plan to angrily and deliberately slander law-abiding public servants.

If there was ever a case where an editor needs to be indeffed topic banned it is this troublemaker TTAAC: I also just observed where usernmame TTAAC(nickn.) accused international admins of being part of a liberal conspiracy to silence American conservative editors, claiming "the fix is in": Then he has the nerve to bring his case to another AE that doesn't involve him, hoping to manipulate any uninvolved editors into looking at him differently! In fact, the minute he became involved in his own AE,it became a WP:BATTLEGROUND over politics! That should speak volumes about whether he could ever be rehabiliated. He and his 'friends' are turning this into the liberal side versus the conservative side. What about being on the side of wikipedia? When politics are removed, this becomes a no-brainer. He's just a WP:NOTHERE who shouldn't come within 100 yards of a political article. The editor seems to do okay editing articles on videogames, his other passion, so maybe he should stick with that.

As a note on the side, as with any one posting their thoughts on your talk page please take what I have to say with a grain of salt as the saying goes since clearly this pushes a button on me. And sorry for jumping in like this, and if you feel like I'm being biased, then feel free to ignore me too. My english and communication is not the best. I'm originally from Italy and only a lurker here and this was brought to my attention by another brother. Maybe the xenophobic attacks suggesting that only American administrators should enforce sanctions on American politics struck a nerve with me. I don't have the cred or desire to take this concern to the AE there nor would I when it is currently a battlefield of political fundies on both sides of the coin. But I noticed TTAAC working with his friends to trick you and the other admins into thinking that this is only about "an innocent mistake" over his "first mistake" over "one revert." After looking into his edit history, he has gotten away with violating rules in all shapes and sizes multiple times. This is just "the first time" he was caught red-handed. Thank you for hearing me out paisan.94.177.241.76 (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Indef, Eh?
I just reverted a sock of a banned user 5 times at the Trump talk page. Where were you? Protecting the 'pedia? Who's minding the store to protect from disruption from people like me? Yeesh... Doc  talk  09:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this does you any credit, frankly... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with images
Greetings, Peacemaker. I have wanted for a while to take 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état to FAC, as it is a rather important article, and one that I've put a lot of work into. I think I can hold my own on prose, but the thing that scares me off is the images; so after your review of Operation PBFORTUNE, I figured I might ask you to take a look at them and possibly help me get them into shape for an FA. If you don't have the time/inclination, no worries: just thought I'd ask. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you'd like to get an assessment of any image issues, I suggest you ask Nikkimaria. She's my go-to-gal for image licensing, and advice you get from her will be better than anything you get from me. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Greater Serbia
On this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Serbia&action=history

You have posted an opinion - Persistent disruptive editing: Failure to engage on talk.

Would you be so kind to explain: What "Persistent disruptive editing" are you talking about and what "Failure to engage on talk" are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A cursory review of this article history and your editing history makes it obvious what disruptive editing and absence of discussion Peacemaker is talking about. It will be equally obvious to any administrator asked to intervene. Stop it or be blocked from editing.   General Ization   Talk   03:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, I'm posting here because of Peacemakers sentence "Failure to engage on talk".

This is my first Wiki edit ever, and I would really like to hear an explanation from Peacemaker.

What "Persistent disruptive editing" are you talking about and what "Failure to engage on talk" are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Disruptive editing for a complete explanation of disruptive editing means. In addition, please click on the links in the warning message that was left on your Talk page by Peacemaker67.   General Ization   Talk   03:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What General Ization said. All you are doing is re-inserting material with your demands about quotations. Go to the talk page and explain what your concerns are, others will respond, then a consensus will develop about the issue. The consensus will then be implemented. I have semi-protected the page for a few days for you to do what I suggest. A return to this same behaviour will likely result in some sort of sanction. Please read the links as suggested. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I still can't see what was disruptive editing by my side, especially "persistent".

My request for the origin (cite) of the term "Greater Serbia" was twice deleted without proper explanation. I returned the question back twice, and I corrected myself several times. What is "persistent disruptive" about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss this further, the talk page of the article is the correct venue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have hard time to understand this. I'm arguing with you and I have to reach consensus with you in discussion you are not involved with?

I still can't see what was disruptive editing by my side, especially "persistent".

I'm really missing something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing the ability to follow simple instructions. Please move this discussion to Talk:Greater Serbia, where it belongs, as requested.  General Ization   Talk   04:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

My ability to follow simple instructions
I apologize, I miss not just to follow simple instructions, but it seems I don't have idea about Wikipedia at all.

Maybe we can solve this if you advise me how to ask for the origin of some term.

It had to appear, and that had time and place.

How to ask for that on Wikipedia?

How to ask anything!?

Do I have to ask for consensus for that or what? I'm not allowed to ask for that before consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The simple instruction is to raise your concerns on the talk page of the Greater Serbia article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have created a section for you to do this at Talk:Greater Serbia. No need to thank me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schichau-class torpedo boat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Schichau-class torpedo boat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

TFA
Today: Yugoslav torpedo boat T1, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Age in the Royal Yugoslav Army
During the April War, were men aged 18–19 called up? Were any men younger than 18 called up? According to a League of Nations document of some type that I downloaded from somewhere... in wartime men as young as 18 could be conscripted and those as young as 17 could be called into non-frontline service (a cabinet order was required for both). I am wondering if you have seen a source that explicitly mentions 18-year-olds being called up in April 1941. I am also wondering if you have read anything about men being pressed into service (illicitly) who were even younger than that. Srnec (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine Terzic Vol 2 would be a good place to start, but I haven't seen a reference to that type of thing myself as yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Schichau-class torpedo boat
The article Schichau-class torpedo boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Schichau-class torpedo boat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion archived
I archived the talk page discussion at Talk:Karl_Wolff as it appeared to be a circular discussion getting out of control, mainly fueled by the one or two editors with feelings about Nazi awards. There was an attempt to "unarchive" it and keep the conversation going. The debate really needs to end. Your comments on the talk page to close this out would really be welcome. -O.R.Comms 04:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm always happier to see discussion archived in the usual manner, so I wouldn't truncate it preemptively, and for me to do so would be seen as "involved". I do think that there is a broad consensus there that the awards can be included if there are RS for them. I would encourage you to try to keep the discussion about Wolff (rather than wider issues) as best you can. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Beuro
I'm not sure when we decided to have threaded comments in AE, but the distinct lack of bureaucracy is refreshing. Must be Christmas time or something. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible in this case. Cheers and merry Christmas! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mary Poppins to you to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T6
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T8
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav torpedo boat T8 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Needed following blatant WP:NPA violations by Disruptive User Previously Warned
Need help with enforcing the outcome of an ANI that DennisBrown presided over, that you were intimately involved.

Unfortunately, admin Dennis Brown has apparently resigned as an admin but, again, he was the enforcing admin for a particularly nasty ANI that ended with him giving one last chance to a troublesome editor named TTAAC - following his violation of discretionary standards and generally disruptive behavior. Before DennisBrown resigned from Wikipedia he clearly warned TTAAC very directly here pointing out that he was on the razor's edge of a topic ban and other consequences if didn't cease and desist from disruptive behavior:



Since then, TTAAC has not only disregarded this serious FINAL warning, but has gone as far as retaliatory behavior, filing frivolous ANIs against editors as payback for blowing the whistle on him, as he did with this pointless ANI here:

TTAAC was lucky this wasn't WP:BOOMERANGED on him, considering that this clearly was attempt to game the system, a WP:GAMING violation.

But since then he brazenly engaged in WP:NPA violations.

Review the following Netanyahu article edit histories:





So, it would seem enough is enough. Bottom line: he's not getting with the program and it would seem like now is a reasonable time for more direct action IMHO.

Ironically, in a fit of projecting, TTAAC childishly accuses his victim of WP:STALKING when clearly he is the one stalking other editors! In fact, all he can ever talk about is this other editor named since TTAAC's disgrace in his own ANI. Apparently, SPECIFICO is TTAAC's go-to scapegoat when he's having a bad day. And, in that previous ANI where TTAAC was found in violation of the rules, TTAAC had also tried to blame his violation(s) of the rules (i.e. in that case violating a 1RR revert rule) on another silly excuse - in that case "vandalism", when clearly he was just trying to BS his way around the rules and guidelines (reviewed below):
 * 1) Nov. 21 Added a sentence to the article Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
 * 2) Nov. 23, 00:14 Re-added the sentence after it was deleted as controversial. They quickly reverted themselves, but then
 * 3) Nov. 23 00:16 added it back, describing the removal as "vandalism". This violated the prohibition against restoring controversial material.
 * 4) Nov 21 removed longstanding material from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as a "hoax"; not supposed to remove longstanding material without consensus.

And now, again, since then (more violations) - (1) his frivolous ANI targeting an innocent editor and (2)these blatant personal attacks when he should really be on his best behavior, (recapped below etc.):





Since DennisBrown is no longer active, I can't go to him. So it seems like it might fall upon another admin in the know who was involved in that ANI to enforce the outcome; which is the ONLY reason I came to your doorstep. And if someone in an authority position doesn't eventually stop appeasing this disruptive editor who clearly knows better, then what's the point of "final warnings" and having discretionary sanctions if the rule of law has no teeth? That is not meant as a criticism of you, but clearly this editor's chronic violation of the rules persists and I would hope his rights end where other innocent editor's rights begin. And, again, I only reached out to you since you were also involved in BOTH ANIs (i.e. and that drama is still fresh and recent in most people's minds, so I don't think it's bad form to mention it now).

Thank you for your time and sorry for the overly thorough nature of this report! Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.141.67 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Peacemaker. I saw a similar note on Hut 8.5's talk page and I am going to copy a comment that I left there:
 * TTAAC has violated DS restrictions numerous times starting immediately after the AE cited above. He has violated 1RR at least twice.  He has reinserted content where such reinsertion is expressly prohibited by the talk page DS template. He has engaged in numerous soapbox, personal attack, and TE disruptions.  Admins are empowered to block editors who repeatedly violate DS.  If you set a high bar that requires other editors to compile indictments, slog through AE threads, and endure retaliatory personal attacks, you are enabling this kind of disruption.  I can understand that an Admin would not block a user for whom there's not a clear pattern of disruption and violation, but TTAAC has shown that he is either incapable of understanding WP policy or unwilling to follow it.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never violated 1RR on any article related to American Politics; this has already been explained to SPECIFICO numerous times, but that user obviously suffers from a reckless disregard for the truth. The sock above, quoting from MelanieN's earlier AE report, accused me of violating "the prohibition against restoring controversial material"—not breaking 1RR—because the diffs in question were more than 24 hours apart. To SPECIFICO, however, arbitrary exaggerations, "misguided...at best" distortions of my edits, "false statements and threats" are the norm—indeed, even the sock is more scrupulous with the facts than SPECIFICO! The notion that this edit summary is a "new violation" meriting sanctions only makes sense if you are a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor whose primary purpose is to get political opponents banned. I'd tell the sock to take this to ANI, but they really shouldn't, considering that their account was indeffed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Question
I wanted to ask a question. Menachem Mendel Schneerson is rapidly devolving into an edit war. RfCs and the intervention of two to three outside neutral editors has failed. The other side has continually sought administrative sanctions for me (you had a note on my talk page about this). I really don't care to fight personal battles. I prefer an arbitrated peace. Inserting a balanced paragraph in the text with heading (see endless talk discussion) and then blocking the article for some period of time. I wish I could say I'm asking for too much, but one paragraph is already much less than this biography deserves. Question: I don't want another RfC. I don't want to get into tit for tat sanctions. What is my best next avenue?Rococo1700 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your RfC wasn't very well worded. It is very important to craft a neutrally worded RfC so that outside editors feel they can provide input into what is often a small group arguing the toss over something. My reading of that RfC is that the other editors believe that such a section would be giving the riot WP:UNDUE weight in the article given Schneerson's actual (apparently very limited) involvement in the incident that sparked the riot, and in terms of Schneerson's life as a whole. You certainly don't have consensus on the talk page to insert what you want to insert, and the other editors there seem to have policy-based arguments for opposing you. As the only way to really establish consensus for or against such a section is a neutrally-worded RfC, and you've already had a RfC (I don't think it was well-crafted), that boat may well have sailed for now. Perhaps you can answer this question: why is it so important that the riot is featured prominently in the article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't come up with the RfC. I thought we had a consensus to include the material. When the New York Times and other major sources looked at Schneerson's legacy, the riots and the problems of Crown Heights are major sections. I don't expect to find much in his past he ever said or interacted with the Blacks in his neighborhood, but that was the concern of others, the silence and separateness, hard thing to directly speak about, but not to forget. It is an issue that bedevils our present history as much as New York City in his day. Others would point out that the frictions emerge from the privileges Schneerson utilized. Others criticize the failure of Schneerson to reach out to the family or the Black community. I find the conversation between Schneerson and Dinkins about a week after the incident is highly paradigmatic of a larger human situation. Much, if not all of this, could be well sourced in authoritative neutral sources, but the battle royale required to only even state at least two mere facts: this was Schneerson's police led motorcade, the riots emerged from existing tensions in the neighborhood, makes this daunting without administrative help. It is a, no pun intended, whitewashing of his life to completely exclude events linked to him, not marginally, certainly not by any stretch of a historian or biographer reading his posthumous biographies. I do not know why their position of I don't like it should have any validity. To me your question seems, why is it important for the biography of a man to reflect his biography? I guess, because he was who he was, did what he did, said or did not say things, etc.Rococo1700 (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Thanks Ed! Same to you! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

92slim
Re: the AE report. I said that unless this is nipped in the bud it would just get worse. And then 92slim jumped into the Julian Assange article to make revenge reverts (see my statement at WP:AE). After he tried to revert me at other articles like Battle of Aleppo, but was reverted by others. In particular by User:Iryna Harpy. So now he's over at her talk page insulting her "From now on your input is pretty much a sack of shite".

I'm sorry but I do think that WP:AE admins who didn't take care of this early on (like with SaintAviator or EtienneDolet) are partly to blame for the fact that the problem is just getting worse and spreading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Carry on at AE
Hi, Thanks for being one of the admins that bother to look at AE. From your experience so far, can you identify impediments that chase admins away from being more involved at AE? Why don't admins quickly take unilateral action to squelch what I'll call "noise", or boomerang the wikilawyers? Do admins invite trouble if they put the hammer down? I'd like to understand (A) your own ideas how to make it work better and (B) your own observation of how it works from an admin's perspective. Maybe the discussion will produce a brainstorm list of possible things to try differently. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

 * Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

 * I think this one is for Rupert, ? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats PM -- very well deserved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...yeah, sorry about that, but this year you and Australian Rupert tied for first, and I got you both open to simultaneously award, and then got lost in too many open tabs. If nothing else at least I got through two hours of 2017 before making my first Wiki-mistake of the new year :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work, PM, this is well deserved! Zawed (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, PM. Thanks for all that you do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well deserved PM, and happy new year b.t.w! It was good to see some new 'uns in the mix too. A good lineup. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone! A humbling experience. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Peacemaker67!


Happy New Year! Peacemaker67, Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Peacemaker67!


Happy New Year! Peacemaker67, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks, Donner60! Same to you! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Year in Review

 * Now THAT's a fruit salad! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Primus inter pares

 * Thanks Tom! You are very kind. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great pick up, Tom. This is very heartening to see as it hopefully shows that newcomers to the project can achieve fantastic things. Thanks once again for your efforts, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16

 * Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Jasenovac Concetracion camp
Dear peacemaker, i do not know why do you keep minimizing Serbian and Jewish victoms in Jasenovac Concetracion camp? Estimation oof Ss and Ndh officers was way higher during war, even for period 1941-1943. And why do you keep adding croats and bosnian muslims? They were not there because of nation so you can not categorized it like that. Number of casulties are way higher, especially since they did not bury them all there. Most of them were thrown intoSava river. Dead bodies were seen even in Serbia, many miles away. Why are you deminishing size of crime? I can see that you are aussie, but probably descendant of Croat emigrants? It is not ok for you to get invokved into this matter. And only valid web site is of Stara gradiska camp,please unblock page and correct it. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.83.157 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are your really trying to claim no Croats were victims in the camp? There were more Croats on the apposing side than the Facist organization that were the Ustashi. To state otherwise is historical revisionism. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of bodies in a river would have surely been sited by multiple sources. Stop pedaling propoganda on a site meant for neutral straight up historical information. Conjuring up conspiracies that Croats from different parts of the world are trying to re write history is foolish.108.54.93.183 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the 700K figure isn't supported by the academic consensus. Making unsupported and incorrect claims about my ethnic background isn't a great way to start a discussion. Start a thread on the talk page like you should have done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker, how you have the energy and sanity to deal with such nationalists from the region is astounding. I have butt heads with my fare share of nationalists of all ex Yugo backgrounds, and wouldn't have the tame compsure to tolerate such attitudes. God bless, man. Cheers 108.54.93.183 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It regularly stretches my patience, but exercising patience just makes it stronger... :-) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

AE
Hello Peacemaker67. I just saw you remark that the original complainant at AE did not present a fully convincing set of diffs. I hope that you have also reviewed the diffs provided by others in this thread and such additional diffs as may be posted. SPECIFICO talk  01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, belatedly
Sorry for the belated message. I don't think we've communicated since before 1 January so... Anyway, pleasantries aside and long story short, could you weigh in on the conversation at the talk page here, and on changes made to the article in question. Should the article be renamed, should the non-qualifying entries be removed from the article in question, or should I revert my changes? If we don't rename the page then the non-qualifiers should be removed I guess, but I wouldn't feel comfortable without some consensus or expressed agreement. Aside from two newbie editors who have only weighed in on my own edits, no seasoned editors have expressed themselves, as of yet, anyway. As you are active in monitoring and making corrections to pages related to this particular field, I would appreciate your input. (What time is it in New South Wales, South Australia, I wonder? You may be asleep. It's noon here in NYC). Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit?  17:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Navy of the Independent State of Croatia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Navy of the Independent State of Croatia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)