User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 20

Another query
Hi Peacemaker, and good day to you. I am taking you up on your "Always happy to answer queries". My ACR WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Neville's Cross has three supports and an image review. Would I be correct in assuming that all it now needs is a source review? I have noticed that occasionally a request for a source review has cropped up on the discussion page. Is this something which a nominator can do? Or is it best left to project coordinators and/or ACR curators? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day . Sorry for the delay. I'll post a request for a source review, but you can do that yourself, in a similar way as Sturm did recently with one of his. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker, that was swift. Thanks. I won't be shy about flagging up my own requests in future, if needed.
 * Not sure why you need to apologise, you are a volunteer just like me and I appreciate your responses.
 * I note that with the source reviews an ACR now needs 5 reviewers, and that there will be a need for a lot more source reviews. I was thinking of sticking a toe in the water on this, initially only for topics that I am familiar with. (Feel free to warn me off on this, I am aware that my Wikipedia experience is shallow.) The FAC instructions on source reviewing seem clear and I assume that they also apply to ACR source reviews? Looking at several FAC source reviews it seems to be within my scope. Just a heads up as you or another coordinator may want to keep an eye on my first efforts. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I reckon have a go. The main things are that they are reliable and of high quality. If you like you could ping me when you do one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

*cough*
 * Thanks PM. I have had a go at one of Constantine's - WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ottoman conquest of Lesbos. I would be grateful if you could check it for me.
 * And another query. If an editor has assessed an article at ACR, what is the position re them assessing the same article when it comes up at FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day . Your source review looks good. That is generally how I approach them. I also tend to query if a Google Books or Scholar search turns up something that looks reliable but hasn't been used, or where there are sources under Further reading that probably should be consulted. This can be helpful to the nominator if they are going on to FAC from ACR, but I generally accept what has been used so long as there are a range of reliable sources used. As far as re-reviewing is concerned, I do it a lot. It saves another reviewer having to look over the article when it has already been closely scrutinised at Milhist ACR. I usually note that I have already reviewed at ACR, review any changes since I reviewed it last time, and re-read the article to see if anything else jumps out. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peacemaker. I shall feel free to cautiously do further source reviews when I see ones in areas where I fee comfortable. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of crucial information on the Service Rifle article
Hello,

I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm only a user of Wikipedia, but this is something I feel the need to speak about. I'm very interested in military history, especially concerning small arms. I used the Service Rifle article as a starting point for a lot of further research into the arms and equipment of various nation's militaries. For the past few weeks people have been going back and forth removing the table on the page, it's confusing and annoying to have to look through the revision history every time I want to use the page as a resource. It doesn't look like anyone knows what they're doing, since the Service Pistol page currently retains its chart and there's been no discussion about it despite the fact that it's just as poorly sourced (yet largely accurate nonetheless) as the Service Rifle chart was. I took the time to look through the revision pages and noticed that the user Commander Zulu had created both of the charts, he was a coordinator for WikiProject Military History so I'm sure that his contributions are valid despite the limited sourcing. His are old contributions, perhaps added in a time where citations weren't as strictly enforced, but that doesn't warrant the removal of them from the page since sources could be found and added in order to keep this valuable resource on the website.

Sincerely, -Jak1911

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sir Sputnik
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keilana

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
 * A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news
 * Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
 * A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
 * The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
 * The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

2nd Regiment Royal Artillery
Hi,

Can you please delete 2nd Regiment Royal Artillery so I can move 2nd Regiment, Royal Artillery there.

Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, . Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment re: ordinals
Hi. I didn't see the MOS:ORDINAL change discussion until the closing (oops). Should the MOS mention that redirects should be created from the 2d and 3d versions of titles, since they are certainly well-used in military and related documentation? Should we have templates for them, as well as the other 2nd→Second redirects? —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day . I would have thought that as they are alternative names, there should be redirects from the 2d and 3d versions to the 2nd and 3rd ones. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

90th Sustainment Brigade (United States)
Hi again,

Can you please delete 90th Sustainment Brigade (United States) so I can move 90th Infantry Division (United States) there. Gavbadger (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day . That doesn't make sense to me. I would have thought that 90th Sustainment Brigade (United States) was independently notable and should be created as a separate article instead of 90th Div being moved to it. The role and size change is pretty dramatic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

With thanks

 * Thanks Gog! You are very kind. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How long is "a bit"?
How long do you want me to stop posting on J-Man's page, especially he has responded to my talk? Days? Months? So he respondss but I cannot reply to him?

Sammartinlai (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you let it go a few days? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will take a few days as end of the week? Sammartinlai (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds grand. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You said his talk pages. How about his edits or new articles?Sammartinlai (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't be creating new articles because I warned him not to. Perhaps just keep away from anything related to the 2007 British Army ORBAT for a few days? That is what I'm trying to work through things with. Can I suggest you just work on something else for a few days and leave him alone until the end of the week? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll avoid that article. Haven't edited it much since place a AfD there. Hopefully he won't create new articles like the First Strike Brigade. Sammartinlai (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah it was you and further comments
You've fallen into the J-Man-11 mode and forgot to sign your posts!

So you claim to "keep for now" for the 2007 AfD. Let me try to answer your argument.

Defence review in 2003? I assume you mean this. That's four years before 2007. Looking at the defence review, there was no claim of new regiments or units like a Army 2020 plan was and Army 2020 (the original) was extensive plan first revealed in 2012 and then detailed out per regiment and unit in 2013. If you want 2007 to be kept, can you show me, as I've been asking J-Man11 until you said not to, that there's such a detailed plan? If not, why is 2007 a significant year for it to appear as an article? Sure, regiments like The Rifles were formed in 2007 but was that laid out in the 2003 WP? And if all were merged (but not newly created), again how does that show 2007 is a significant year, four years after the 2003 Delivering Security in a Changing World report?

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have the discussion on the AfD page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Question
Did you see the summary in ? yeesh... - †VV¢ 06:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment
Hello Peacemaker67 - I believe I have completed all fixes on 1st West Virginia Cavalry with 3 exceptions that I hope to fix later today. The exceptions are the pictures of Custer, Early, and Grant. I originally selected those photos because they were different than the photos used elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, I now agree that their sources, or their information in their Wikimedia Summary, are a little "iffy". There are numerous photos of Custer and Grant, and a few other photos of Jubal Early too. I will find replacements, possibly from collections at the Library of Congress, for those three that will hopefully not cause concern. TwoScars (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy with the prose and wikification, I'm just going to check the images again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will still do whatever is needed to fix the photos issues. A couple of thoughts: 1) National Archives: I noticed a Military Featured Article uses a photo from the U.S. National Archives. What do you think of this source? They have some good pictures of Custer that I would crop. 2) The Library of Congress also has a photo of Custer in its Brady-Handy Collection, which is the same source used in the Military History Featured Article of James A. Garfield.  In another Military History featured article, 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, the photo of Robert Betge is from Civil war photographs, 1861-1865, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division—and does not even specify an author or what collection. What if try to use photos that have similar documentation and sources as these examples? TwoScars (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for spending time on this article. You are very patient and I learned some things. I will let it sit for a while before trying A-Class. I have three other articles (Murano glass, Fostoria Glass Company, and Indiana Glass Company) that I am trying to get to GA. TwoScars (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Happy to help. I also learned some things I didn't know about the ACW as well. Image licensing can be very frustrating, and I hope that having to go through those ones gave you some pointers on what you can do and what you can't. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milorad Petrović
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milorad Petrović 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, PM, just letting you know I have posted a few suggestions for this article on the review page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I have a concern about the outcome of a discussion on this article's talk page. I see that you commented there near the end, but following that, there just doesn't appear to be any kind resolution. There was a debate, involving several editors, that started in December of last year, and despite a consensus, a single editor, basically chasing everyone away by bludgeoning them with persistent, circular and at times off-topic and even non-sensical comments, basically asserted his own will over the consensus. I'm just wondering how the project can tolerate such an outright refusal to engage in any kind of meaningful and cooperative dialogue while asserting such blatant page ownership? Is that the lesson here? Just wear everyone down until you get your way? I'd like your thoughts on this. Thanks. - wolf  10:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * G’day wolf. I would initiate a neutrally worded RfC on it, as I suggested. That is how we resolve these types of disputes, get a wider community view. It still may not resolve it, but at least you would have given it a go. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Module talk:Infobox military conflict RfC on result parameter
Hi, you may have seen the close of "no consensus". I may have this wrong, but "no consensus" is not the same as "consensus against". In "no consensus", the result is to default to the existing consensus. The problem is that the proposition was phrased to determine support of the status quo. I would doubt if the OP would view "no consensus" as defaulting to the status quo without some resistance. Your thoughts on what it means and how to deal with it would be appreciated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

 * Thanks Tom. My contribution was insignificant compared to your consistent and excellent work in bringing WWI to life. Well done on the whole project. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Involved close
I don't think this was an appropriate course of action: &. You either close or comment, not both (including to disparage me). It's not a coordinator's role to clerk discussions that they are involved with. Please undo and let someone else close the discussion if they deem necessary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a project page, I'm the lead coordinator, and I made a coordinator decision to circumvent a disruptive and pointy thread that was clearly out of process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It almost sounds like you don't wish to see your own words quoted back at you... --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is in the archive if you wish to quote me later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant this portion:


 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is also there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why you archived it so quickly, because it was "pointy", and not because it involved you? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s almost like “casting aspersions” without evidence wasn’t a finding in the arbcom case. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and unarchived it. The action seemed premature; a subheading shouldn't be moved to the archives separately from the rest of the section, especially an active one, and it doesn't seem to have made it to the archive. It ended up in archive 148 –dlthewave ☎ 01:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I archived it straight away, because it was disruptive, pointy and out-of-process, and to leave it there would have perpetuated the disruption. I also didn't see my username mentioned, and thought it was about Sturmvogel_66. We've already had one editor leave the project after reading your negative thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And, your action was inappropriate and perpetuated the disruption and out-of-process nature of the pointy thread, which had nothing to do with me, so far as I was aware. I have re-archived it in 159 (which the bot created after I archived it the first time). Leave it there. I created a new and neutral thread about the name of the award, which was the non-disruptive part of K.e.coffman's thread. BTW if you don't like the actions of a coordinator, you can appeal to the rest of the coord team to overturn my decision by starting a thread on the coord talk page, we are also all subject to recall by members of the project, or you can vote for others when the time comes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Disruptive threads are not typically archived immediately, especially when they are a subheading of an active section. Normally the thread will be closed and collapsed, then archived along with the rest of the section after it has been inactive for some time. You became involved when you made a comment just before closing. –dlthewave ☎ 01:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true, this was a far from typical situation. Leaving the thread in place would have continued the disruption and undermined the collegiate nature of the awards. I will ensure that the thread is attached to the parent thread once the current threads are archived. I have explained myself to the coord team and have noted they are free to revert me if they think I acted inappropriately. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are accountable to all editors, not just the project coordinators. It is not your job to remove negative comments; these actions are dangerously close to censorship of viewpoints that you disagree with. –dlthewave ☎ 01:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And you are just one editor, or is that two? I'll let the coord team decide on the appropriateness of my actions, and I am accountable via recall in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've taken advice regarding this and unarchived the thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svgk Chan

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
 * A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
 * A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news
 * Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
 * To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
 * Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
 * Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries
 * (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Oswald Boelcke
Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Landing at Jacquinot Bay ACR
Hi, I'm a bit surprised by the lack of reviews to date of WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Jacquinot Bay. If you have time, could you please post a review? It goes without saying that it should be a negative review if you don't think the article is up to standard. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look in the next few days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

ACR reviewing query
Hi Peacemaker. Is there any rule against or problem with me doing a source review for an ACR and a normal review? And I suppose, the same query for FACs. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) That would be acceptable and doing both source and full reviews on ACRs has become pretty common. Kges1901 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you have a vested interest. Thanks. FACs? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As Kges says, there is no obstacle to do that. I certainly do at both ACR and FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall do then. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Request
I am asking that you moderate your tone when addressing established Wikipedia editors. The personalisation of disputes has been entirely unnecessary, given our history:


 * "K.e.coffman's view above is hardly the consensus position across the project" (that was sort of out of the left field; there was no need to single out my contribution)


 * "'To your knowledge'. Precisely. You apparently do not know of any..."


 * via edit summary: if you want to be a coord, run at the next election


 * "Because we have been elected by the members of the project to administer parts of the project (...). You haven't. If you want to, run for election next year."


 * "We shouldn't reward this type of behaviour."  ("we" who? The coordinators?)


 * "too smart by half"; "ambit claim"; "[you] expect people to take you seriously?" (this is just rude)

There's no need to act like a Wikiproject owner; coordinators are not more special then others. Matters can often be resolved via compromise and discussion; combative attitude and vocal dislike directed at me and other contributors make it rather difficult. We don't have to pretend to like each other, but we can at least be civil. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The lack of self-awareness in this post is breathtaking. If you disrupt the processes and spirit of the project and the way we reward editors for their volunteer work, in order to try to make a point, especially one you've already tried to make and failed to get traction with, you can't expect people to welcome that. I certainly don't. This is a basic rule of life in any community, and applies here as in the real world. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Hello P. Just wanted to let you know about this Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since the IP is unlikely to inform you about the thread. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've commented there, but it hardly seems worth it... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Operation Storm looks like a case for applying the MOS guidance on result? I would do so unless you believe otherwise? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to be that prescriptive. Other than occasional POV warriors, there is little if any disputation about the result in this case. If we truncate the result parameter, it may attract more disputation from both sides, and I don't think that will benefit the article or Wikipedia. If a few neutral editors raised issues with it, I'd be willing to look at it again. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A little doubt
Hi, im new in this great community, and I have a doubt, where you can vote for the editors of the year? i dont found a link or a platform for voting, it would only be that, until the next ._.7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsou TheIronman (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * G"day, if you click on the links in the thread above this one, they will take you there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Operation Storm
I would like you to join the discussion on the talk page. Thank you.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

 * Thanks, Ealdgyth! You too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

J-Man11
Hi, I see that you and are trying to help this new editor, J-Man out, but there is another editor that appears to be stalking his edits just to change them and in some cases leave a less-than nice or unhelpful edit summary. I've tried to engage with this other editor about his hostility and personal attacks, but with zero success, so I'll leave it to you and/or Buckshot to deal with (Plus I know you've dealt with his attitude before, PM67).

It would be a shame if J-Man were to start to get on the right track, only to be derailed by an attack from this user, possibly wasting your efforts as well. You only need to look at the history of these pages to easily see who and what I'm talking g about;
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards
 * Talk:Coldstream Guards

That is a dozen articles, plus a talk page, that this editor has followed (stalked?) J-Man to in just the past day. There's more, but I thought this would be sufficient. This editor is currently before ANI as I write this, so I won't try interacting with him any further. Hopefully you will have more success. Thanks - wolf  07:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew there were some issues in British Army generally with J-Man, but that is a lot of activity, and seems a bit closely focussed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thankyou WolfChild I was aware; I've been keeping an eye on Sammartinlai/BlueD954. In particular, I was in the process of reversing edits at 1 Arty Bde when I realised a reasonable source had also been paired with a unreliable source. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw
and don't want to hear anymore.Sammartinlai (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to tell Thewolfchild. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just bringing this to your attention, . Please let me know if there are any further personal attacks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

fyi
Say what...? - wolf  04:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this is quite bizarre behaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Park Woods
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Park Woods 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Park Woods
The article James Park Woods you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Park Woods 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Hello Peacemaker67. I wanted to wish you a happy Christmas and an enjoyable New Year! I read your work and I appreciate it greatly. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:18, 24 December 2018 (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) 07:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks Donner60! You too! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Gunther von Kluge
Hello, Peacemaker. I have been gradually improving the article on Field Marshal Gunther von Kluge, mainly his career on the Western Front. I like how it’s coming along, but will need some help from an experienced editor to expand sections on his role on the Eastern Front because I lack the necessary sources. Would you be interested...or do you know someone who would be? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my Eastern Front resources are pretty thin, so I'm not sure I would be able to add much. I'll have a think about anyone who might be more oriented towards Kluge and let you know. Happy New Year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Greetings PM, I wanted to say happy New Year and hopefully you'd have a great 2019. When you see this it is (highly) posible already 2019. That's why I'll say it now already even it is still 2018 here. I would say: "we Europeans follow you the Australians into the future". Cheers and have a great day. CPA-5 (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Blackburn
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Blackburn 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Orangemike
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BorgQueen •  Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Addshore



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD:
 * G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is db-disambig; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
 * R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion).  This is db-redircom; the text is unchanged.
 * G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use db-blankdraft.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
 * Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news
 * Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length . All accounts must have a password:
 * At least 8 characters in length
 * Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the [//github.com/wikimedia/password-blacklist Password Blacklist library])
 * Different from their username
 * User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
 * Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
 * Copyvio-revdel now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration
 * Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
 * Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, you too! And thanks for all your encouragement during 2018! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Blackburn
The article Arthur Blackburn you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arthur Blackburn for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roy Inwood
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roy Inwood 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Blackburn
The article Arthur Blackburn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arthur Blackburn 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

 * Thanks Tom! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

J-Man11 Question
Question for ya for some of the articles I've madeJ-Man11 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. What is the question? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke RFC
Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in a RFC concerning Boelcke's legacy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oswald_Boelcke#Request_for_comment:_Boelcke's_legacy Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roy Inwood
The article Roy Inwood you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roy Inwood 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Bergerac
Hi Peacekeeper. Apologies for the confusion over the ACR source reviews. For previous nominations AR had carried out what I took to be source reviews, only for another editor to then carry out what was explicitly labelled a source review.

Enthused by these two being listed for closure, I nominated a further two. I ration myself to two ACRs at a time. (Yes, two more from the HYW.) The first went fine, but the second - WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bergerac - seems to have broken the system. Any chance that someone could have a look at it? It is beyond my meagre skills, and anyway, you probably wouldn't want me poking at the system. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed by AR. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I suggest sticking to two ACRs at a time, otherwise it can a bit overwhelming for reviewers. I generally don't nominate a second one until the first has at least had one review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia
Hi Peacemaker, do you have any suggestions who I might contact at WMF regarding problems on Croatian Wikipedia? Since you seem to have some experience or information on how they function, would you be willing to lend your views as well?

My own experience is that they’re often deleting information from reliable sources, including well-respected western historians, if these do not agree with their views, and then try to ban people who quote these sources. They just deleted direct quotes from the US Holocaust Museum, from a Jasenovac Catholic priest, from camp inmates quoted by other historians, plus direct quotes of a Croat historian at Zagreb University, etc. At the same time they allow wide quoting of convicted forgers and Holocaust deniers, who Croatian historians say are massively misrepresenting and manipulating the facts. I’d be glad to translate these exchanges with help of Google Translate 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhhommmasss (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection of Operation Storm
With regard to your recent semi-protection of Operation Storm, there's the matter of WP:INVOLVED (In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved.). I don't really mind your action or the subsequent edit - quite the contrary, changing the disputed bit while the matter is still being discussed indeed is bad form at best and disruption at worst - it's just that in this particular case it would be better not to use admin tools once you got involved in the content dispute. Not a criticism, just remarking. GregorB (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi GregorB, the issue of being an involved admin comes up all the time for me with Yugoslavia topics on my watchlist. Jasenovac for example has POV pushers on it regularly and requires protection. My actions regarding Operation Storm were intended to force the dispute onto the talk page where it belongs, and stop the edit warring, not to enforce my view. If the IP had been adding the massacre info while it was being discussed, I would have undertaken the same action. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Message
I am indeed but I wanted a new start as I understand i became agitated and went of the rails. I would like to redeem myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, just be aware of WP:SCRUTINY and comply with WP:CLEANSTART. Put a tag on the old page. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cite template choice
Book vs web response on bot page (others might join in). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Axishistory not a good source?
Why did you say Axishistory and Lexikon der Wehrmancht are not reliable source? They are not "angled" to be pro-axis and axishistory has several source on every page. Lexikon is also very detailed?--Havsjö (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day Havsjö. Both are self-published, the authors are not independently and reliably published (and are therefore not experts in their field), and they don't provide the sources from which their information is drawn. They are far from academic, because they are not footnoted, ie no pages of books they are sourced from, etc. They are both fanboi sites, that don't meet our reliable sources criteria. Neither should be used in Wikipedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Hi PM: I've lately been working on this draft based on this FL from 2009. Before I work more, I am curious as to whether that style is still acceptable ten years later- as in, should the notability section still be there? Should pictures go in every entry? I plan to take this to FL so your input would be greatly appreciated. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, basically that form should be ok, but the reviewers at FL can be a bit finicky. The lead needs to establish why the position of Commandant is notable (based on rank, I expect) and put the list in context in terms of when the USNA was established, any hiatus in its history, how many commandants there have been, who the current one is etc, but should also be a summary of highlights of the list in terms of the most notable individuals who have fulfilled the role (any that went on to be Chief of Staff, Chairman of Joint Chiefs, the number that saw fleet command etc). You may need to cite the lead for the obvious reason that not every detail in the lead is going to be in the table. I think it is the ultimate to have a photo of every commandant, but it wouldn't be necessary for FL, you would just want to be able to say that you had searched for a PD image of every commandant and have included every one you could find. Hope that helps. Will look out for it when it is nominated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I will work on the lede later, but have added images now. The only problem is that short descriptions with tall images make the list have a large amount of white space... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion - List of Serbs?
I would like to hear your opinion on this matter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Serbians

Thank you.

Oh hello there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.205.198 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

NDH flag icon
Sorry to have to type here again over a dispute, but Im just editing like that since the "independent state of croatia" link was/is broken!
 * Just change it to Independent State of Croatia and all will be well. It is considered POV to pipe or truncate NDH to Croatia. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will do that. But I do think thats a bit strange, there would be no such situation if Nazi Germany or (fellow puppet/client) Slovak State would be called "Germany" / "Slovakia"? Also Independent State of Croatia is a pretty long name to be stuffed into an infobox. But if I see more broken links I will fix it, but not replace it with Croatia then --Havsjö (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Gotlob Berger
G'day, what's your issue with my additions to his page? What is wrong with adding links that for whatever reason, haven't been added? Why is it ok to have some of the decorations provided with a link, and some not? What function does that serve? Or are you the only one who can put links in? I don't understand your reasoning here. What's the issue with supplying award dates that aren't there? Again, are you the only one who can do that? Why couldn't you just say "thanks for adding those links and dates Troy"?. Regarding the missing award dates, what is wrong with supplying a source regarding those missing dates? I didn't remove your over 20 year old source, I just added a source to the MISSING award dates. Again, what's possibly wrong with that? Why the friction here? Troy von Tempest (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

GA after FAR
Please stop reverting Werner Mölders to GA status. Our WP:GAC guideline states that a former Good Article does not revert back to GA after losing Featured Article status. If you disagree with this guideline, a slow edit war is not the proper way to handle it. –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Leak
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Leak 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible outing by IP on controversial I/P issue
Explained issue to Dougweller here [] -- hope I'm not being over-cautious but I figure it's better to err on the safe side. I collapsed it for now -- perhaps it should be surpressed? Posting here bc I don't know if Doug or any of has tp-stalkers are going to be editing when it's night for much of the Anglophone world. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Enterprisey • JJMC89
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg BorgQueen
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svgprisey

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
 * Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news
 * A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

draft guidelines -might be of interest to you
Hi Peacemaker67,

Currently there is a draft on conduct regarding nationalist editing see Nationalist editing. Due to your experience with handling or interacting with editors over many years your advice and input would be much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Roy Inwood
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Selective notification
Hi, I noticed that you notified the MILHIST project:, but have not done the same for Wikiprojects Germany and Italy, where this discussion would be highly relevant. I would appreciate it if you could do so. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Get off your high horse, I don't work for you. I posted a notice on the talk pages of both infoboxes as well as WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. If you think those WikiProjects should also be included, do it yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Canvassing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is utter rubbish. Why would it be vote-stacking if I informed the most likely WikiProjects (those with a direct interest in the two templates) and those that otherwise have an interest in the use of both templates via the template talk pages, using a notice that was entirely neutral? I also have absolutely no idea which way those I notified would lean. For all I know, the people at WikiProject Crime and Crime Biography or WikiProject Military history and the people who watchlist the templates could well agree with you. Try reporting me for it, and see how you go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP Germany and Italy are inactive and notifying their talk pages would likely not result in a response either way. For example, see the long list of unresponded-to messages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Kges1901 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops. \Tilt\ - wolf 02:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Civility
Some of your comments related to the dispute at Albert Kesselring may be viewed as violations of the civility restrictions which are in place for that topic area. "Get off your high horse, I don't work for you", "That is utter rubbish and "Try reporting me for it, and see how you go" are not an appropriate way for any editor to address someone who they disagree with and are particularly unbecoming for a project coordinator and admin, particularly one who expresses a desire to maintain a "collegial atmosphere". As I've asked you before, please tone it down. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Nothing but robust conversation with a wikilawyering editor who has been decidedly unpleasant to me over an extended period of time. Your persistent posting on my talk page might be considered harassment. You might like to explain why you posted a warning to me regarding BLPs, as I rarely edit BLPs? What article(s) were you referring to? Or was that just a warning intended to put me off editing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been active in the discussion at Albert Kesselring, which is a BLP, and your recent editing history shows a number of other BLPs. The D/S Alert is not a warning; it is simply a notification to make sure you are aware of the sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: My mistake, these historical articles aren't BLPs. I apologize and retract that statement. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe check your facts first next time. Kesselring died in 1960. Apology accepted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Leak
The article John Leak you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Leak 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for James Park Woods
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hey there. just a quick question about the task forces. Once I add the userbox to my page, will it automatically add my name to the task force list? GreyPage (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, you need to do that manually. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's Day
Happy Valentine's Day PM. I hope you had a great Valentine's Day with your loved one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too I hope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you PM, yes I had a great Valentine's Day. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

7th Battalion, Royal Scots
This new article of J-Man11's has huge screeds copied from the Royal Scots memorial trust site. That site does not assert copyright, but I'm uneasy; your thoughts please? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the copyvio and it's been redacted. Our policy states that sources like this are protected by copyright, even if they do not display a copyright notice. –dlthewave ☎ 20:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * many thanks for your swift response, and even more for clarifying the policy: everything's copyrighted whether or not there's a little (c) shown somewhere. I can swing my axe freely in future, without just having to be uneasy. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for dealing with this. I got a bit distracted with something else. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346
Hi Peacemaker. I am not sure how these things work, so I may be wrong, but I believe that Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 ACR now has the three supports plus source and image reviews necessary for promotion. If you could check this the next time you are reviewing ACRs - which I realise may not be any time soon - I would be grateful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And I think that with Sturmvogel’s support Battle of Bergerac’s ACR also gets over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: the first one, there is just a late entry from P. S. Burton to address, and it looks good for promotion. The other one actually only has one formal support that I could see, unless I'm missing something. I will ping the uncommitted reviewers to see if they are supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah. I seem to have got you running around. That wasn't my intention. In future I shall try to contain my impatience. I am sure that that would be character building.


 * I hadn't noticed that CPA-5 had not formally supported, or I would have nudged them myself, apologies, and I had taken Tim's comment as a support.


 * I have learnt something re responses. I have responded to Buidhe and although they have not commented on my response you didn't mention this. I have not yet responded to P S Burton at all, but apparently I need to. Fine, I will know where I am in future. You may wish to check over my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've nudged the first one, waiting for a response on the second one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

His references don't support his statements
J-Man11 again - I am sick and tired of having to go through his articles, which he is now mainspacing quickly, line by line to correct them. His references are sloppy; they often don't support his statements. Can we please rescind his permission to create mainspace articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Blackburn
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina = Herzeg-Bosnia?
Hi, Peacemaker67! What do you think about these edits:, ? Does it make sense to list Herzeg-Bosnia as an alternative name of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Surtsicna (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is potentially POV, due to the proto-state Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia from the Bosnian War. I'd want to see multiple reliable sources using it as an alternative name before adding it into the lead, in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll find any post-NDH sources referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina as Herzeg-Bosnia, and those predating WW2 are hardly a reliable source of info on what the country is called today. Is there a precedent for listing names that were never official or widespread and have not been used for a century? What's more, the name "Herzeg-Bosnia" was never used to describe the state itself, since there was no such state at the time. Surtsicna (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:ALTNAME is the guideline, but generally there needs to be multiple reliable sources that use the alternative name. Do they exist? Personally, I doubt it, and the WP:BURDEN to produce them is on the editor wanting to insert them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not know about that guideline. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And what about this, by the same user? It seems to conflate Washington Agreement with Dayton Agreement. Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Different user I think, but I think inserting (rather than replacing) that is ok, it was the creation of the Federation, an important stage in the history of the country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks, ! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius
I was going to do a source review for this, but note that you have already asked another editor. If this should fall through, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . As I haven't got a response from Iazyges, if you could step in, that would be great. I'd then stand Iazyges down. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog. I let Iazyges know. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker. Sorry to bother you. I am rather regretting having volunteered for this. I would be grateful if you could have a look at my comments - WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius - to check the tone (I am losing it a bit with the nominator) and whether I am asking too much (there is not a lot of other ACR source reviewing to refer to to get a 'feel' for where it should be). Sorry to dump this on you, but given the supports from three very high quality reviewers I am starting to worry that I am either making a mountain out of a molehill, being a right bastard, or both. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . It is quite frustrating, I certainly appreciate that. I think you are right in insisting in several areas you have identified, and having read what you've written, I agree it could fail on sourcing unless addressed. My advice is to stick with it, although painful, I have found that reviewing curly articles like this can be a positive experience in retrospect. Sometimes image and source reviews can be learning experiences for everyone involved. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peacemaker. That reassures me that I am not being over picky nor communicating inappropriately. I shall crack on then. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedian break
Hey PM, I hope you have a great. Well curently I have a really really busy period in real life (family stuff). So I came here to ask you my permission to have a short Wikipedian break? Yes I know it sounds weird to ask you this question. But I'm a person who don't wanna leave MILHIST or having a break without saying anything. For me is honor, friendship, family, recpect and loyalty important and having a break without any permission isn't loyalty to the group. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, we all need a break occasionally, especially when RW stuff impacts on us. I suggest putting a template on your talk page so editors know. See you back soon, I hope. I know editors have greatly appreciated your reviewing in particular, I certainly have. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks PM, I now will focus on those RW stuff. Also can you do me a favour? A couple of days ago I made a review on the Marcus Aurelius nomination. I personaly am not fan of having a nomination that long open. He/she recently asked me for a review, which I did, but for now he didn't adress or even replied to my comments. If he/she replied and adress my comments could you be so kindly to tell this to him in case the nomination's source, image and the other comments are adressed. For now he is struggling with the source and the image reviews, thanks. Anyway I will be back in at least begin March so please be safe in the meantime. See you in the future mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

33rd Waffen Cavalry Division of the SS (3rd Hungarian)
Hi,

please check the subject, just because here you did not make that revert like the other two SS Divisions. Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC))

Community reassessment
Johann Mickl, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Evad37
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Evad37 • Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ritchie333



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg There'sNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news
 * The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
 * Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news
 * A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
 *  has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
 *  has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Jørgen Jensen scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Jørgen Jensen article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 2, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 2, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the Rogožarski IK-3 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 6, 2019... Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

GAR Notice: Hans Philipp
Hans Philipp, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda!

DYK for John Leak
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft talk:1989 Norwegian Armed Forces Order of Battle
Could you please look at Draft talk:1989 Norwegian Armed Forces Order of Battle? It seems to be a less detailed, less sourced, copy/paste/reduced draft of the articles: Allied Forces North Norway and Allied Forces South Norway, which both deal with the Norwegian military OrBat in 1989 in detail. I don't see the need for the creation of a less detailed article about a topic already dealt with in detail. A redirect should suffice. User has adopted the creator of the article  in question and might have to say something on the matter too. noclador (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there !!
I got the message and I was wondering if you pick a page from articles needing attention to work on,how do you mark it as done when you are Finished working on it or you don't ?Jack90s15 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can do that. When you've finished with one you might like to ping me, and I'll take a look and give you some feedback. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

will do!Jack90s15 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius
I am done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A problem with the MilHist assessment
Sorry, I don't know if this is the right section to report this, but I've noticed a problem with the MilHist assessment software (or perhaps it's just a mistake on my part). I recently reviewed the page ((Nick Welch)) and decided it should be a C grade. Unfortunately, after entering the code {WPMILHIST|class=C|British=yes|b1=y|b2=n|b3=n|b4=y|b5=y} (with double brackets at the end but it will display it as the actual banner if I do that) the talk page displayed it as a start class, which I feel bad about because the author of that article put in the effort to make that article a C. Do you know a fix to this so the author and the page get the grade they deserve? Cricketts19 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . The syntax automatically overrides what you put in the |class= field if the individual |bX= etc ratings don't match the class you have selected. This can happen with C-Class a bit. In your case, because you rated |b3=n, the article isn't C-Class, it is Start. An article is only C-Class if all |bX= are y except for either b1 or b2 (not both). Any clearer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thank you. I really appreciate your work on making Wikipedia a better resource, the amount you've done is inspiring to budding editors like me. Cricketts19 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this notice but I am at a loss to know how I could have reviewed a military article. Is there some way to find out whatever I might have done? Maybe I could do some in the future! It sounds like a worthwhile activity. Best, EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, I hope you are well. Looks like you may have commented on a Milhist A-Class review. , who runs Milhistbot which automates our reviewing awards, might be able to narrow it down? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the MilHistBot produces a log for this very purpose. I will let you know.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Has a look) The Bot credited you with a review of WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Midland Railway War Memorial on 18 January 2019.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye. Something of a drive-by comment,, but you contributed to improving the article nevertheless. If you are interested, you can see which articles are up for Milhist A-Class review at WP:MHR, and the criteria (which are close to FA-Class), are at WP:MHA?. You would be very welcome if you wanted to contribute. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks . Just wondering if the code needs to be tweaked to make sure this posts as a new comment thread. Also, were we going to include the number of reviews in the message? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It needs a tweak to add a newline before the section. This will be added. The number of reviews wasn't on the to-do line, but we can have it next time. How would you like it to look? "

I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for conducting 34 a-class and 12 peer reviews in January to March 2019" ?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest just a total, ie "...WikiChevrons for conducting 55 reviews over the period January to March 2019"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann
Adding the failed nomination template is misleading. They offered no review; it has not failed the nomination. Dapi89 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67, Dapi89, I've been doing the cleanup on similar review pages opened by newbies who had no idea what they were doing for quite some time. The proper process is to put the review page up for a speedy deletion and make sure that the nomination retains its seniority. I'll do the necessary on the article talk page as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for Jørgen Jensen (soldier), a South Australian Victoria Cross recipient! "He was a Danish-born immigrant to Australia who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions at Noreuil, France in April 1917 while serving with the 50th Battalion. His citation for the award mentions that he pulled a grenade from his pocket and pulled out the pin with his teeth!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda!


 * Today, thank you for Rogožarski IK-3, "about a pretty reasonable home-grown Yugoslav fighter aircraft of which only 12 were produced. Their pilots fought bravely against the April 1941 invasion of their country, but most if not all were destroyed in the fighting. The design was used as the basis for the locally built post-war S-49 fighter." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! I was lucky to get a dispensation for two TFAs in a month. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg DeltaQuad
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kingturtle

Technical news
 * In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the ARBPIA 1RR editnotice edit notice.

Miscellaneous
 * Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
 * As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation time
I hope that you still get that brief warm glow, but anyway, it makes me feel better to award this to you, and that's the main thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Informal opinion sought
I am guessing that you have some familiarity with the article Border Police of New South Wales. I am an editor who focuses more on article content than how Wikipedia operates. Therefore I would welcome your opinion on whether the 2 sections that I have posted on Talk:Border Police of New South Wales are fair comment or not. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Necrothesp
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Pharos

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Primefac

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news
 * XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration
 * In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically.  All current administrators have been notified of this change.
 * Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
 * A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bill Kibby
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bill Kibby 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) 02:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A-class source review
Hey PM, my apologies but could you have a source review in the Normandie-class battleship nomination? 'Cause the nomination is ready to go. The only thing what is holding this nomination is a source. Personaly I do not know how a source review works but it's close to an A-class. Could you be kindly to have a look in the nomination's sources. Thanks. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On it. Factotem (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And done. Factotem (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A case of Reversion in the article Nazism and the Wehrmacht
Hello, an user (2601:81:c480:2527:28dc:4456:c0d5:1963) keeps reversing my edit on the article Nazism and the Wehrmacht (section: National Socialists within the armed forces). I see that in this section, historian Evans for example argues that Wehrmacht soldiers tended to be Nazis. (From my edit) Neitzel and Welzer argue that most of Wehrmacht soldiers did not care about ideological matters, but many were anti-Jewish; they go on to explain that a Nazi could protest massacres, an anti-Nazi could support such anti-Jewish war crimes...etc They also made a caution that there might be a degree of difference between reality and soldiers' boasts of war crimes. I think that this gives nuance and balance to the section. What is your opinion? The parts I extract are around this pageDeamonpen (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Badcoe
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Badcoe 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A-class reviews
Hello! I'm interested in putting that series of articles I wrote about the Silesian Wars up for A-class reviews, and, since you so graciously reviewed all of them for GA, I wondered if you had any pointers to offer about what improvements, if any, are still needed to make them credible candidates for A-class? I noticed, for example, that MilHist seems to (very appropriately) expect alternate text for all images, so I've added that throughout the four articles. I'm planning to ask for help in getting the articles consistently into European English, since it's a European topic. What else should I take care of before asking A-class reviewers to look them over? Thanks for your guidance! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . I reckon they are good to go. Of course, having several reviewers will mean they will have a different approach to me, and some additional things will be identified, but they are all in good shape and ready for ACR in my view. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Badcoe
The article Peter Badcoe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter Badcoe 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bill Kibby
The article Bill Kibby you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bill Kibby 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) 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Gosse
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Gosse 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for the Kaiman-class torpedo boat, about "a class of dinky torpedo boats that saw service with the Austro-Hungarian Navy. It was a very successful design, and all 24 boats saw extensive active service doing a range of tasks during World War I, mainly in the Adriatic. One was torpedoed and badly damaged by a French submarine, and two sank an Italian submarine."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Article assesment
I must ask, why did you label a lot of my articles, like Mikhail Stepanishchev, Aleksey Smirnov (pilot), Aleksey Ryazanov (pilot), Ivan Stepanenko, and Nikolai Stolyarov as start class, yet not fill out the checklist to explain why? They certainly are much longer than your typical start-class article and have very in-depth coverage of the subject, to the point that little more can be added. Also, why did you remove some some of my contributions from the list entirely, like Stepan Artyomenko? What should have been done? You said on my talkpage that you thought that they were B-class.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day. I was checking/verifying the new article class for the purposes of the contest, not actually assessing each article, which you should seek to get done at WP:MHAR. So, where no checklist had been completed, I rated it as Start, which is what the banner template does automatically when a proper assessment against the five B-Class criteria hasn't been done. No doubt some or all of them should be assessed higher, but it is not the job of the coordinators to do that when they are verifying assessments for the contest, it is your job to either self-assess up to C properly (including filling out the checklist), or submit it at MHAR where an independent editor will assess it. Information on the criteria is available at WP:MHA. All of this must be done before the end of the month in question. As there was no scope to fix the assessments within the month in question, even if I had assessed them, they wouldn't have counted towards May anyway. MHAR isn't daunting, just copy what others have done and see how the assessments turn out. You can ask questions about assessments that have been done there as well. If you've got any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lionel Matthews
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lionel Matthews 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) 16:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks, I love baklava. Six months in Cyprus did it for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
 * An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
 * An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news
 * The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion.  You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
 * Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution!  The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous
 * The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
 * The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Gosse
The article George Gosse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Gosse 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello
I just wanted to say, "Hi." I don't really have a reason to contact you, other than that. I have been working steadily on Wikipedia for a number of years now, mainly on musical instruments projects but a few that touch on your military history WikiProject (such as Yellow Wolf (Nez Perce), Toohoolhoolzote), and Model 1814 common rifle. I admire your WikiProject and am trying to figure out some of the things you are doing to organize and keep the motivation/energy going; I'd like to duplicate it with WikiProject Musical Instruments which appears dead (except that I know people are out there writing and editing those articles, but not talking or coordinating). I particularly like the way your group is improving articles to the higher standards.Jacqke (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . Some of the things that keep people motivated are our assessment system, where editors can list an article they have worked on at WP:MHAR for another editor to assess it against the B-Class criteria, our monthly article writing contest, and our system of awards for reviewing and article writing. We have quarterly reviewing awards, where even one review is rewarded, and we have a system of A-Class Medals and A-Class Crosses which are awarded for getting articles to A-Class. We've found that the project benefits from having a few elected coordinators, as at least then we have people who know it is their job to close A-Class reviews and check the monthly contest. We found that having no-one designated with any responsibilities means that no-one actually does these jobs in a timely way. Good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

ptsheritage.com website
Good afternoon to you, Sir.

I have posted a link under No. 1 Parachute Training School (UK), where I was an instructor from 1957 - 1977. I am currently the Heritage Representative on the PJI Canopy Club Association - our old boys Association for past and currentPJIs.

I have constructed a website - ptsheritage.com - which is displayed on your page in black type - ie will not open a link to the site.

I would be grateful if my bona fides could be recognised and this link opened.

As this is a genuine historical project(viewed often in Australia), any advice would be much appreciated.

Sincerely DOUGPTS (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Doug Peacock

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lionel Matthews
The article Lionel Matthews you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lionel Matthews 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) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Vardar scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Yugoslav monitor Vardar article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 9, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 9, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)
The article Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Gottlob Berger scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Gottlob Berger article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 16, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 16, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  15:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi PM ... that was a hard blurb to write. See WT:TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. I wasn't going to run it until the anniversary of his war crimes conviction, so hadn't done anything about a blurb as yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Great job. I've tweaked it a bit to add in some more about his war crimes conviction and removed a sentence, hopefully still within tolerances? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly. Tweaks look good! 959 characters. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Zmaj
I gather that you want to take Zmaj to FAC? What I have on-hand might be good enough, but if you've got any Serbo-Croatian sources those would probably be very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely one that I'd like to get to FA, as part of trying to get the Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy GT to FT. I'll see what I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, you can find better coverage of its peacetime activities and maybe cross-check the wartime ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Character Attacks
When I saw the hugely false statements, I had to sign up and add the correct information. Should all Slovenians not be allowed to contribute to the Domobranci page, or any Slovenian page for that matter? As they would have some family member that was affected by this point in history? I have used only documented facts, and information to confirm my additions/edits, so I do not need any advice on that. And not sure how I am positively skewing the domobranci? If anything, I feel you are looking at this as if it is a black or white answer, which it isn't. There was much more involved. And its interesting that the whole article seems to focus on the Nazi connection, missing out much of the years prior, as well as the most horrible part of their history when 12,000 of the domobranci were sent back to their deaths by the British. Sounds to me like someone is skewing this to their own spin. And I do not appreciate being questioned about my motives, when I have provided more than enough facts, references, and information backing up my edits. Bohsie (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking your character, I'm pointing out common traps that new editors can fall into in this area, and by your own admission you have a family connection to the Slovene Home Guard. I've been editing in the Yugoslavia in WWII space for eight years, and I've seen many new editors fall into these traps. I've barely edited this article before, but I do have copies of several sources that discuss the organisation, so I'll be adding material from them over the next little while. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than us editing and undoing, and going back and forth, why not work together to provide the correct version of events, unless your sole focus is to show that the Domonbranci was Nazis, which we know wasn't the case. It seems like your only agenda is to label the Domobranci Nazis'.  Bohsie (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My agenda to is reflect what the reliable sources say about the Home Guard. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Question regarding Chetniks
Hello. I noticed your editing & hoped you may be able to answer some of my questions please? Please message me @ matdelta9@hotmail.com. ? Many thanks, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.223.129 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * emailed you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for Raymond Leane, "a highly decorated Australian Army officer who rose from the rank of captain to lead a brigade during World War I, and was dubbed "the foremost fighting leader" in the Australian Imperial Force. After the war he was quickly appointed as the Commissioner of the South Australia Police, a role he carried out with distinction for 24 years, overseeing significant developments in the force, for which he was knighted."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Me either... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

1st Armoured Brigade (Australia)
G'day, PM, when you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at my changes on the 1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) article, and letting me know if I've addressed your points at the ACR? I realise I'd introduced an accidental redlink, which I have fixed today. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Took my eyes off the ball. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, easily done. Thanks for your time with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

AnnalesSchool SPI
Hi, For the record (especially given the threat to resume socking) I've reported the latest AnnalesSchool sock at Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool. To save another admin the bother, could you please mark it as closed? I suspect that I shouldn't do this myself. Thanks a lot, Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I have no doubt it is AnnalesSchool. It is a very specific POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • 1 • Flyguy649 • 2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
 * 1 's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
 * 2 's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
 * In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
 * The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
 * The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
 * A request for comment seeks to determine whether Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous
 * In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop . This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi Peacemaker67. This Wikiproject page has been disrupted by some IPs for a few days. Can you have a look and place a semi-protection on the page to protect it from further disruption? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't condone the edit-warring and lack of talk page discussion, I can actually see why they might be insisting on some clarification, as the use of the term "Macedonians" has at least two meanings, and given the controversy over Macedonia, I can see why someone might be sensitive about it. It also isn't clear to me why the scope of the WikiProject is limited to North Macedonia and ethnic Macedonians, when there are non-ethnic-Macedonians living in North Macedonia as well. Given the sensitivity of the subject, I would recommend modifying the way the scope of the WikiProject is presented to avoid any possible confusion with Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Macedonia (Greece). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning. The term "Macedonian" has at least 3 meanings. The community consensus is that the ethnic Slavic Macedonians and citizens of North Macedonia should be referred withing articles and other pages as "Macedonian" without explanations of that kind the IP editors are trying to add. AFAIK, adding that kind of explanations is considered disruptive, and I have seen editors getting blocked for that. The Wikiproject includes articles of ethnically non-Macedonian citizens of North Macedonia. The main focus are ethnic Macedonians though. From all Balkan disputes, the Greek-Macedonian conflict is the crappiest one, hence the rules of Wikipedia on that are the strangest ones. I will keep an eye on the page and might invite further admin attention to help with input. Cheers and keep up the good work. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . You could ask ArbCom about any proposed wording, to avoid getting in the poo over ARBMAC. Can I suggest "WikiProject North Macedonia is a WikiProject whose aim is to increase the quality of articles related to North Macedonia and Macedonians. It is not focussed on articles relating to Ancient Macedonia or Greek Macedonia, which are covered by WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Greece respectively." Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. If implemented, the changes could be of much help. I do not have the time to start an ARBCOM discussion. I expected myself to have more free time this summer but I was wrong. I am pinging on the talk page of the Wikiproject the other editors who reverted the IPs and a solution might be worked out there without spending a lot of time with ARBCOM debates. I am also pinging you there and you are welcome to help with your experience. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Virtual War Memorial Australia
Hello Peacemaker, This is just a quick email to say we appreciate your work and are interested in your research. As an SA person, it would be great if you could have a look at the Virtual War Memorial (which you may be aware of – vwma.org.au) and get in touch. It’s a small world among current and former soldiers, so I image you know some of our people. Please email: schools.program [at] vwma.org.au, and we can continue the conversation. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.255.48.99 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Badcoe
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for Yugoslav monitor Vardar, "an Austro-Hungarian river monitor that served under two names in the Danube Flotilla during World War I, during which she fought the the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army. After the war she was transferred to the the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and renamed. During the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, she laid mines in the Danube near the Romanian border, and fought off several attacks by the Luftwaffe, but was forced to withdraw to Belgrade. Due to high river levels and low bridges, her navigation was difficult, and she was scuttled by her crew on 11 April."! Wish you stats like Kafka had, a few days ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. I seriously doubt it, but here's hoping! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, - for some reason, Kafka is exceptional. Too bad the description of organisational failure (click to open the book) is so precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Managed half of that... But not bad for an article about an old river gunboat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Greater Serbia
Can I just extend my thanks for having cleaned up the contentious Serbia/Kosovo matter. I did try, and no matter what you do this is one you just cannot demonstrate parity unless you churn out an entire screed. I did say I'd welcome improvements and what I see is a prominent effort. I may write pretty well but to hear me speak you'll know English isn't my native tongue. So once again, thanks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, but let's just see if it sticks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project
Thanks Kges1901! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for George Gosse
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy 21st July
Happy 21st July cannot wait for the firework have a nice day. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk
I have a question for the Battle of Kursk I have come across people saying it was the biggest tank battle in history, and then other sources saying it was the Battle of Prokhorovka or the Battle of Brody. I was a bit Confused with situation Since I have gotten Very different answers?
 * Sorry, not my area I'm afraid. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks I will do some more research on my own to find out why Jack90s15 (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ptolemy I Soter
You might want to look at this. It states that is GA assessed. But remains C class. Adamdaley (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, looks to have been one of yours, could you just check that it has been properly assessed against all projects and added to the Good articles page if it is ok? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Zords, again
Hi Peacemaker. The edit war has resumed at List of Zords:. Could you take a look? I fear that the IP user involved is not going to stop. Railfan23 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:FRAM
I'm getting in late here, but I just want to note that I agree completely with your comment at WP:FRAM. One of the main problems is that lots of admins are willing to overlook or excuse away gross incivility which I think its safe to assume would not be tolerated in their workplace/place of education, and which they would not tolerate if it was expressed in person at one of their friends. An upshot of the Fram mess is that I'm not going to let instances of this go past me any more. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm the first to admit I have not always been a paragon of civility on here, especially in my early days dealing with Yugoslav POV-pushers, but I agree that the admin corps in general needs to be less accepting of poor behaviour, regardless of who it is that is being uncivil. Especially admins quickly unblocking editors who have been blocked for incivility. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Military Commander
About this, what would you say to quotes beginning from so-called? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Kibby
valereee (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Greens (Montenegro)
Hey, thanks for your input. However, the issue area that I am usually dealing with here (Balkan and especially Montenegrin history and politics) is highly contentious and a fertile breeding area for hot-headed editors, such as the anonymous editor that I have reported, and unfortunately a number of established users. As you have noted, I am an experienced editor, and know how things work around here, but it is sometimes difficult to assume good faith when the opposite is blatantly obvious. Therefore I have claimed the edits to be vandalism, since there was absolutely no intent to improve the content, but only to disguise cherry-picked opinions as facts - therefore to vandalise the article in a sense. And now it stays that way, because I backed away from an edit war with an anonymous IP which has a total of nine edits. I strive to improve the content on the issues I am interested in, and the state of a number of Montenegro-related articles is absolutely atrocious as they are heavily biased, so I will continue to make an effort, as limited as time allows me, to continue introducing some objectivity and NPOV, whether anyone likes it or not. Have a good day. Sideshow Bob 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)
valereee (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Cheers, Kges1901! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beeblebrox
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the page Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
 * A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration
 * Editors may now use the template Ds/aware to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous
 * Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
 * The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing  here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist. Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Lionel Matthews
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Croatian
You are trying to deal with the history of something that You do not understand at all. This edit, the edit summary and Your user page tells me that You do not have a basic clue about the things. Denying of Croatian language and separate Croat ethnicity was one of means of war against Croatia. When dealing with the Croatian Defense and Independence War, You must know that. Operation Overlord e.g. affected Germans, French, English, Americans etc. but no "Germano-French-English language" because that one does not exist. Croatian language and Serbian language are different languages, like Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. These languages are internationally recognized as separate and respect that, as well as the feeling of the speakers, who declare their language as "Croatian", "Danish", "Swedish", "Serbian", "Norwegian", without any addition. Using the name Serbo-Croatian shows that You are biased, not impartial, not neutral. With that You explicitly put Yourself on the side of Serb aggressors. Chiartop (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is utter nonsense. Linguistically, Croatian and Serbian are standardised varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language. But that is besides the point regarding the appropriate language template on the Operation Storm article. Just because Croatia launched Operation Storm doesn't mean we only use the Croatian language template, we use the language template that is most appropriate for all those involved, which is the overarching language of Serbo-Croatian. If you disagree, feel free to initiate a neutrally worded Request for Comment about it on the talk page of the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense indeed. Croatian and Serbian differ less than American English and British English, and nations are not defined by languages. It is not Wikipedia's goal to cater to anyone's nationalist delusions. The terms "Croatian", "Serbian", "Serbo-Croatian", "Bosnian", etc, all refer to the same language; which term should be used depends on the context. Surtsicna (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and hi, Peacemaker67 :) Thank you for keeping an eye on these articles. Surtsicna (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I don't mind a bit of talk page stalking, I do a bit of it myself... ;) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we cooperate?
P, your comments here suggest that you don't understand me. So let's talk; privately if you prefer, by email. Also, please join the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters and let me know if there are any articles where you think my downcasing was a mistake; thanks for your support on some of these. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day Dicklyon, I consider you are using ngrams to make mass changes without looking at the specific sources used in articles, which is how I consider such things should be determined. I see no evidence you have been looking at specific sources when proposing or making moves. I consider ngrams useless for the purpose of determining such matters, and believe it is tendentious behaviour to push a particular decapitalisation agenda based solely on ngrams. So frankly, I have more productive things to do than quibble over capitalisation on disparate articles I know nothing about. I'd rather write content or review the content created by others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do look at both the cited sources and book-search sources in addition to n-grams. But it's a lot harder to post a link summarizing such looks; see some specific examples in the RM at Talk:Waterloo campaign.  My editing is generally about moving toward conformance with our MOS, which is a lot more than capitalization.  But please do let me know if you any place where the sources seem to be contrary to what I've done.  And note that on the campaigns I've been working case-by-case, just as you suggested, not "mass" moves the way I did with some cases that were well settled and not source dependent, like the thousands of MOS:JR changes.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I accept that there is a legitimate purpose involved here (although the MOS isn't always clear), but I am of the view that centralised discussion isn't the way to deal with it, as the sources may indicate a different answer for each article, and individual RMs are required. I am also only slightly interested in this capitalisation discussion, as I don't think it is really important to the encyclopaedia, so I'm not interested in digging into the individual article sources to inform the discussion unless it relates to an article on my watchlist. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * No worries, would be good to catch up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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


 * At Women in Red, we are including Military History as one of our priorities for September. I'll be putting the meetup page together in the next day or two which will also include a WiR talk page template. I wonder whether this will be sufficient for you to identify new articles or should we also encourage our contributors to become members of WP Military History? As our topic includes "Women during World War II", not all the biographies may relate strictly to military history although most of them probably will.--Ipigott (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ipigott, that sounds great. No need for your members to become members of Milhist, although they would be very welcome. Happy to put a link to your talk page template on the drive page if that would help direct work that way, I'm sure the drive participants will be able to tell the Milhist articles from those that aren't. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That makes things easier. Could you provide me with a link to your drive page? It would be useful to include it on our meetup page which I am currently developing at WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/133. If you make a link, I think it would be best to make it to this rather than just to the template. Please let me know if there is anything more you would like me to mention about your drive.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The drive page is at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Spitfire
Hello, I expected to be more productive this summer, and thought I'd be on the wiki. However, sadly that was not the case. I'll get working on the Spitfire article, and hopefully get it to A-class. Thanks for the peer review, by the way. Cheers, <b style="color: #000000">Friy</b><b style="color: #FFA500">Man</b> Per aspera ad astra 08:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, RW has to come first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Crusades
Hi Peacemaker67

Many thanks for your in depath response to this FAC, I think I have finally covered your points so can you give it another look over please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to get to it over the coming weekend. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally completed the additional comments, cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

2/10th Battalion (Australia)
G'day, PM, building on your work on the 10th Battalion (Australia), I wonder if you would be keen to work on 2/10th Battalion (Australia)? It is currently rated GA, but if you are keen to get involved, we could probably take it to ACR. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd need to secure a copy of Purple and Blue first, but I'm definitely interested. I'll order it, take a run through and let you know. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks. I have a copy on loan for another four or five weeks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bulgaria
Hi Peacemaker67. An IP editor made two unexplained edits. I reverted the former but not the latter as I am not sure whether they were good changes. Can you take a look when time permits? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day Ktrimi991, this has been discussed at length on the invasion talk page. Bulgaria did not invade Yugoslavia, German forces invaded from Bulgaria. There is even a note in the infobox telling editors not to add Bulgaria, but they still do. It is an ongoing thing. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Peacemaker67. Much appreciated. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ba Congress
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ba Congress 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator
How do I nominate someone for milhist project coordinator? Векочел (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day Векочел, what you should do is encourage them to self-nominate, because they need to answer a couple of questions. The instructions for nominating are on the election page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Lawrence Weathers, "an Australian soldier who was awarded the Victoria Cross during World War I, although he was killed near the end of the war and before learning he was to receive it. When he returned to his mates after the actions that earned him the VC, his uniform was covered in mud, he had blood running down his face, and had five days' stubble on his chin. He was also festooned "like a Christmas tree" with souvenired German binoculars and pistols. He, assisted by a few others had captured 180 Germans and three machine guns."! -- I have a peer review open, on the music we sang in the best concert I remember to have done, - it was also a turning point in a great composre's career, and a milestone in music  history, 400 years old and still avantgarde. That needs to come out better in the aricle, - help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

David Morgan (pilot)
Hi thanks for your rating of the above article, I really enjoyed researching and writing it especially the part about the post war reconciliation. I wondered if you could advise me what would be missing to get to A class, I just added what I think is a couple of relevant images. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, . I particularly liked that aspect of the article too. I'll take a look in the next few days and make a few suggestions, but I suggest putting it through GAN first before going for Milhist ACR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ba Congress
The article Ba Congress you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ba Congress 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia
Hi. You protected the version of the page which was changed in 3:06 am. Version you protected is nationalistic POV with conspiracy theories. You can see discusion here (section on Turkish Croatia) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=910866194 I copied it here also; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATurkish_Croatia&type=revision&diff=913674560&oldid=913323564 Could you please protect the previous version, that one which majority of users suggested, the one without conspiracy theories? Thnx in advance. In every other wiki; https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turska_Hrvatska https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkisches_Kroatien its the version withouth conspiracy theories.... --Čeha (razgovor) 14:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the talk page, and come to a consensus there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we have one user with nationalistic POV, which changed page in 3:06 am, and you protected his version few hours later. Can you read discussion? Do you think there should be consensus with conspiracy theories? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want a broader community view, start a neutrally-worded Request for Comment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
I am new to participating in Backlog Banzai. I have been creating and updating the Missing Topics about Espionage. Just wanted to check in with someone to make sure I am doing it right. I have updated my section of the Worksheet. 12:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC) User:G._Moore Talk
 * Yep, looks okay to me, although you should only be scoring actual articles created, not redirects. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Floquenbeam • Lectonar
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news
 * Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
 * The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous
 * A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Peacemaker67. I'm just posting to let you know that List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Giants2008! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish Croatia
Since you are the protecting admin, do you want to decide about placing the merger templates? There is a request at Talk:Turkish Croatia. I was going to ask the proponent if they could find anyone else to back a merger, but you should do whatever you prefer. From the history of the article, I see that the same merge was proposed before but it expired without action being taken. It appears that the existence of a thing called Turkish Croatia is not believed in by everyone, so it might be a nationalist trope. But the History section of the article has a lot more references than in June, 2016 so maybe progress has occurred. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have done that, cheers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My apology to for using his TP, but I am compelled to clarify on situation and circumstances, and in response to, since this issue, as it seem, won't go away easily - as behavior of two involved, now possibly three, self-identified Croatian editors, can be illustrated by following attempt to re-group and organize a WP:TAGTEAM, with editor Ceha alerting editor Silverije to "take an eye onto discussion" at User_talk:Peacemaker67#Turkish_Croatia, one in which Ceha was quite assertive and demanding; then editor Silverije alerting editor Shokatz, another Croatian POV pusher, with whom I had problems in previous encounter on directly related subject(s) with EdJohnson himself being familiarized and involved (problems characterized with discussion at EdJohnston TP in which I was openly degraded by Shokatz who called me a troll, an idiot, among other things), emphatically asking editor Shokatz if they can send him (Silverje) an email. First, allow me to redress EdJohnston find about previous merger from 2016 (one Ed linked) - that was actually second attempt (by some editor) to merge article, because the first merger, one which was executed, was done between 23 June and 29 June 2010, with administrator Joy being forced to revert several of Silverije's redirect deletion and page recreation, and repel him with a "vandalism" warning; but Silverije then waited for nearly 3 years to proceed with his plan to recreate this nationalist claptrap, or as Ed properly remarked, nationalist trope. Now, the current, protected revision is the only version of this article that is actually possible to confirm in sources, which I did, using some in placed references, however, it still needs to be merged into the Bosnian Krajina, since the topic of even this protected referenced still fails to warrant standalone article per WP:NOTA, being also WP:CFORK (WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK) of no less than four articles dealing with the same subject from various angles: Military Frontier, Croatian Military Frontier, Bosanska Krajina and Donji Kraji (and to the extent in few more). Meanwhile topic is being explicitly bound to the history of Bosanska Krajina region. It's a version these three Croatian editors (and some IP, at times) are minded to remove from wikipedia at price of being involved in prolonged edit-wars, meatpuppetry, and complete disregard for behavioral and/or edit policies and guidelines. Revision that aforementioned editors prefer, as written in manner of geographical and historiographical account but from evident historical revisionist POV, and used in persistent reverts, is blatant fork under the most obscure geo-political term for a title, where they can vent WP:NAT and WP: SYSTEMIC bias without being exposed to wider community scrutiny.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  15:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is hardly worth trying to parse this if you are going to mix up content and conduct issues so thoroughly. If there is a simple story about which people or groups have tried to use 'Turkish Croatia' as a term and whether historians support the concept there should be a way to tell the story, in neutral language and without accusing anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I heartily agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , once again your ambiguous retort leaves me mystified - I am not sure if you are saying that I am casting aspersions, that I have already accused someone, or if you just declaring usual behavioral policy notifying me so that something like that does not happen in the future? Anyway, I did not come here to complain and seek a resolution, so I never expected a reply even, let alone asked for a reaction or measures of any kind to be taken. I just wanted to "comment" on, or as I put it, to "clarify" few things, same thing you did. And as for a clarification, even if it's not worth of analysis to you, it certainly means a whole lot to me - if only you could come up with a similarly eloquent rejection of Shokatz's abuse of process and me in the discussion that editor initiated at your TP back then, maybe there would be no need for this exchange here and now. As an aside, that "story" has been told, by me, over the last six months in at least a few dozen clearly compartmentalized per WP policies and guidelines, and neutrally framed discussion initiations (and replies) on for discussion designated pages and boards.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Za dom spremni
Hi, Peacemaker. Do you know where one can report editors for using the fascist salute Za dom spremni? I don't think Sieg heil would/should be tolerated either but I have never seen it reported anywhere. Of course, Za dom spremni went hand in hand with being called a filthy Chetnik. Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've given them a one-off warning for the PA and told them not to use the Ustasha salute. If it recurs, let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion disrupted
Fellow editor, as the administrator who protected the article Turkish Croatia, and subsequently accepted my request for editing by submitting a merger template, I am contacting you because I would like to examine the possibility of extending the protection, at least until the ensuing merger discussion and its disruption has been resolved. Predictably, and as I have already hinted at in my initial post here under the Talk:Turkish Croatia titled section (above), the editors mentioned in it eventually (the day after my post here) resorted to requesting assistance of like-minded people outside English Wikipedia, namely by placing couple of inciting request at Croatian Wikipedia, to which few responded in attempt to give boost to their (systemic) biased POV by means of "voting" on the merger. And, not only that they voted more then once(!) each, they also, apparently, using WP:Single-purpose accounts as well. I will not insert any "diff's" here from the discussion page or from Croatian Wikipedia, as it would be best if you decide to look at the whole thread there, which is not at all lengthy so you can make really quick observation by yourself. Few comments with linked evidences are provided by another dedicated fellow editor, and one by me, at: Talk:Bosanska_Krajina; and if you are really in a hurry, or if you are, for any reason, time limited, you can skip through my initial proposition post there, which is the largest consisting of few paragraphs.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Clarification on italics
Good morning,

I'm looking for clarification on the italicisation of ship class names. I was under the impression that foreign words like Navigatori would be italicised even if they were not the name of a ship. This is different than say the U-boat classes, or words that have been co-opted into the English language such as proper nouns. Thanks for your time, Llammakey (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, AFAIK they are only italicised when the class name is also the name of a ship of the class. If it is a theme, like Flower-class corvette, where the ships are named after flowers, but none of them was actually named Flower, it isn't italicised. can confirm. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good question - based on Manual_of_Style, I'd think it wouldn't be italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I will fix the navboxes then. Llammakey (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for James Park Woods, another South Australian Victoria Cross recipient! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Castillo Armas
Hi Peacemaker67. I finally got around to sending Carlos Castillo Armas to FAC, here. Since you recommended it some time ago, I thought I'd let you know. I'd appreciate feedback too, of course, but you've also already done your bit in improving that page. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ba Congress
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Pusan Perimeter Offensive
Yes its single source, but Start class? Really? Mztourist (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, having only one source and, given the source, only one side of the offensive, means that additional sources and citations are required to ensure accuracy, and also indicates inadequate coverage. So, b1=n and b1=n = Start. If you would like a third opinion, I suggest WP:MHAR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Realistically getting WP:RS from the other side of the offensive is impossible and most works on the Korean War just seem to assume that as soon as the Inchon Landing took place the Pusan Perimeter just dissolved, so I'm not sure there will ever be more adequate coverage. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No prob. But I would have thought that reliable non-US Army sources would be available? It doesn't have to be North Korean, just independent of the US Army. General works on the Korean War must surely have covered it in some detail? Does the US have an official history of the war? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my experience most works on the Korean War go from Pusan Perimeter to Inchon Landings to Chosin Reservoir with very little in between. I would have thought that the US Army history would be regarded as the official US history, but will dig around and see if I can find anything else. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Thanks Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done & Welcome Back! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to work with you in the same team. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Could use your help with this
Can you please do some Archiving/Cleanup on the talk page of this article. It is extremely clumsy and is discouraging to anyone who wants to write something on the page. I apologise in advance for bothering you with this because I don’t have the confidence to do it myself.— Vaibhavafro Talk  17:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've added an archiver. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks mate! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno
 * Pictogram voting rename.png JamesBWatson →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news
 * As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration
 * The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
 * The arbitration case regarding was closed.  While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit
Hi... Could you please so kind to participate in request for comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit. Thanks.(Ckfasdf (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC))

Muhammad III of Granada
Article: Muhammad III of Granada – Is this "GA" or "B" class? Adamdaley (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Adam, you changed it from GA to B. GA is for all projects. I've fixed it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/archive1
Hi Peacemaker.

I hope that things are going well with you. You may recall reviewing Inter-Allied Women's Conference at ACR. With a bit of encouragement from me, its author has put it up for FAC. They are a very nervous first-time FACer. If you had the time and the inclination, a run through by you would help to settle nerves. The nominator is more than happy to discuss faults, improvements and missing bits of MoS, but has a dread of things becoming confrontational. Not that that would ever happen on Wikipedia. I would do it myself, but I have put so much work into it, and acted as the FAC-mentor, and so feel that I have disqualified myself as a reviewer. Obviously, feel under no obligation.

Separately, is there anything which I could and/or should be doing as a MilHist coordinator which I'm not?

Thirdly, would you me like me to comment on the "comprehensiveness" or otherwise of Yugoslav submarine Hrabri at its FAC?

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First one, will do, I remember when FAC was daunting. Second one, if you could check the ACR list to see if any are ready for listing for closure or need a prompt to a reviewer, that would be great, and close any that are listed that you haven't reviewed (you, I and some others rarely can, given our prolific reviewing). Last one, I'd appreciate it, whatever your opinion is, it would be good to have a consensus either way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * Gone through them. I wasn't sure whether to nudge Maury to respond to the source and image reviews of 3 October for ASV Mark III radar; I decided not to, yet. I did two image reviews and two source reviews. Sadly I missed that you had already done an image review for WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov and picked up and published a couple of (possible) issues before realising. I am happy to have your prior review override mine, or to be told that I am incorrect re the issues I identified. None I could see ready for promotion, and, as you suspected, the one ready for the bot I have reviewed.
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look at the FAC today I expect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Insurgency in Kosovo (1995–98)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Insurgency in Kosovo (1995–98)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Temporary vandalism block requested
Could there be a trmporary vandalism block put on the featured article Douglas Albert Munro? Over the last 24 hours there has been an unprecedented number of vandalism edits on this article. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is today's TFA. Cuprum17, PM67 is based Down Under; by the time he notices this things should be slackening off. I suggest contacting another admin. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)