User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 21

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
My first support on my first featured article nomination, thank you. I truly do appreciate how thorough you are and how enjoyable you make improving an article. It really does take a village to make articles be the best that they can be, as we all incorporate our own proclivities in the process. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, SusunW! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * Let's begin on a real world note. Peacemaker67 served on two United Nations-led peacekeeping missions. Of the 148 new articles and seven new templates he has created 48 are featured articles/lists, 83 are A-class articles and 59 good articles. Over 66,000 edits to his credit. Peacemaker67 is a prolific and helpful reviewer, at all three levels, but especially at ACR and FAC. A long time coordinator of the Military History Project and currently serving as the lead coordinator. He seems to be everywhere in the project, offering sage and calm advice, and making sure that everything runs smoothly at the editor interface. Exactly, it seems to me, the sort of selfless editor this award was created to recognise.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7  &#9742;   16:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a very nice surprise, and WikiProject Editor Retention! Thanks very much for nominating me, ! Cheers to all, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice sought
Hi Peacemaker. I know that I seem to be taking up a lot of your time lately, but I wonder if I could beg some advice? When Battle of Cape Ecnomus was at ACR I removed its map because it wasn't accurate. One of your parting comments was " I recommend a new map be obtained before this goes to FAC, as that would greatly aid understanding" Thanks to User:Amitchell125's hard work one has how been generated and inserted. It is, in my entirely biased opinion, the best map ever generated to illustrate this battle. Which is not to say that Andrew may not be persuaded to tweak any issues you can see with it. The advice I would like is as to which of the following I should do - regarding the map - before nominating the article for FAC.
 * 1) Nothing.
 * 2) Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at first mention. Ie "The first two squadrons (I and II) led the way ... " etc.
 * 3) Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at every mention. Ie "The first two squadrons (I and II) led the way, each arrayed in echelon, together forming a wedge. The squadron on the right (I) was under Vulso and the squadron on the left (II) under Regulus. The consuls' hexaremes sailed alongside each other, at the "point" of the wedge. The third squadron (III) was immediately behind them, towing the transports. The fourth (IV) was in line abreast, protecting the rear... As the two leading Roman squadrons (I and II) made for the middle of the Carthaginian line, Hamilcar staged a feigned retreat with his centre, probably by rowing in reverse, and the consuls pursued. The Roman squadron towing the transports (III) fell behind and a gap opened between the two leading (I and II) and the two rear (III and IV) Roman squadrons." etc.
 * 4) Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at first mention in each paragraph.
 * 5) Something else.

I am inclined towards 2, with 4 a close second. but would value your opinion on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at this later today, Gog. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say, this is a great series of maps which lay out the battle very well. Great job, ! I think introducing them using the relevant numeral at first mention is all that is required given the map is so clear. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peacemaker. Appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dates
I have a official service sheet of 296th and it indicates serving in Korea before the date you published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.82.229 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to. Can you provide more information? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (copy edit and add source). Thanks you. 117.4.107.199 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day. I'm sorry, but I am not familiar with sportsperson articles. I suggest you ask at WT:SPORTS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia
Hi, You reverted my edit on this article because of lack of sources. But the column i added comes from the existing source already mentioned "Niehorster, Leo (2013f). "Balkan Operations Order of Battle 3rd Hungarian Army April 1941". Regards Filiep (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right, sorry about that. I have reverted myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Operation Alfa
Hey Peacemaker. I noticed that you had a heavy hand in editing and writing | Operation Alfa article. I think it is worthy of becoming a Featured Article. What say you? I'm interested in nominating the article for DoYouKnow? as well.

Also, do you have any advice on creating articles? There are some significant WWII massacres that took place that have no articles for them that I would considered writing for. Such as Kninsko Polje massacre, Kamešnica-Mosor valley massacre, Drakulić massacre and Dotršćina executions. OyMosby (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did contribute to it, but the one who did the heavy lifting is effectively retired from WP. I'd have to read it through and see what sources I have that mention it. For FAC it would need to include some additional Yugoslav sources in order to be truly comprehensive. I'll have a look at let you know what I reckon. Gudovac massacre is a good model for writing up a massacre article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean 23 editor? It seems they changed their name to Amanuensis Balkanicus and are still active. Thanks for the insight. I wish there were more people on here to churn out such articles for the other Balkan regions as he has done a bang on job for Serbia wiki articles. I may try to reach out to him/her for pointers. Thanks Peacemaker. By the way, I read your bio about your service in the military and NATO, especially during the Yugoslav Wars. Have you written more elsewhere on you experiences of that time? I'd really like to read more about it. Especially from someone outside the Balkans, such as yourself. Thank you for your service. OyMosby (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was PRODUCER that worked on that one. In any case, I'll have a look at it soon. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

ARCA notice
Amendment request: German war effort, which you were a party to, has been declined by the arbitration committee. The request has been archived to  Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. – bradv  🍁  15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bradv. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A bit of a bollix
Sorry to trouble you. If you have a moment, could you please help with this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Thank you for your time and trouble. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 23 November 2019. Please check that 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/November 23, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You still working on French military history?
If so I would like to request some help with a big dump of badly-translated articles about the French Foreign Legion and the colonial wars in Algeria, which were posted at PNT. The English should at this point be OK-ish as I have worked quite a bit on them but they aren't really anything to be proud of, and while my interest in French military history is non-zero, it does have limits. In any event, the help of willing editors would be gratefully accepted. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a partial list Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, French history isn't my thing. I suggest you post at WT:MILHIST. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Basil II
The ACR of Basil II doesn't seem to be going anywhere. What is the procedure in such cases? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually we would give it a month from nomination, but with two opposes and no apparent action on the comments, I would usually put a comment on it indicating that it will be closed in a week unless action is taken to fix the problems identified. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg MSGJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
 * The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
 * A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Delicious! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Cold War, again
hey. I'm really sorry to bother you, but Cold War was finally delisted from GA and so needs a MILHIST A-review. I promise I would do it myself, but last time I bollixed it all up. Ummm. May I ask... would you please do the honors of starting it? I am sorry to throw it off on you. I will !vote delist after it is started. Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, it is pretty proforma, tbh. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. The redirect from the old review page had to be deleted to make way for a new one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Next step?

 * On the talk page I exposed that all presented information are accurate and written in books by historians, deleting  that facts is because someone does not like it, I'm here alone and I'm interested in what to do? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you do now is you discuss the edits on the talk page and a consensus is developed about their inclusion (or not). That is how Wikipedia works. Be prepared to explain why you think these sources are reliable per WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How they not reliable when most has original historical documents as a source. The rest was written by historians and there is no reason for them to have lied, that lie can be easily disputed.  I am curious how  come that  Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is referred in the Wikipedia as a Serbian when we don’t have any historical source data which prove that. Original historical information mentioned by  American historian is that he is captured in Croatia (today part of eastern Bosnia) otherwise in that area other historical sources mention Croats, Serbs are extremely rare in historical documents (I'm talking about the historical records which mention local population). And when I bring  information that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha coming from Croatia it is not  relevant information? Which are these reliable sources which prove that  Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin when we don't have any historical data which prove that, but we have information that it comes from Croatia. Something is wrong here, as I said this is an ideal platform for mitomania, unfortunately, but I'll try to fight with the truth. Mikola22 (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to have this discussion on the talk page of the article, not here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no one on talk page, because there is no concrete evidence that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin. And what we have from talk page when that information(Serbian origin) still exists in the Wikipedia article. Go to some forum and prove that  Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin, you won't be able to prove it. But this information still stands on Wikipedia read by ordinary people's, students, etc. but it is a lie. That's why i asked is Wikipedia  a private portal? I don't know what's going on here? Mikola22 (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project
A serious well done for this; that's an awful lot of hard work. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog, some of that has taken years to get up to scratch. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Technical note
I think the comment you left at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment was meant for the Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment (the latter is the one I meant to link from MILHIST; it was initially named identically to the first section and later renamed). I assume you followed my link and ended at the first, rather than second, section. Both are related as they concern the same remedy, but the issues raised are a bit different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just on this case, when I consider the ArbCom candidates on the weekend, I'm going to pay close attention to their responses to the question you asked and their views on cases like this one. I think that the current committee too enthusiastically got itself involved in content matter issues. This may have contributed to the problems with burnout. It looks like we have somewhat differing views on the detail of this case, but are in agreement that ArbCom is implementing penalties which unduly get into content matters. The World War II case was much worse, and I'd if I had my time again I'd post quite different evidence there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To be honest Nick, I didn't pay enough attention to the initial Poland case, and should have twigged to the incursion into content, as I believe it is similar to some aspects of the GWE case in terms of ArbCom overreach. I wanted to lay out my concerns, which is why I've commented on both Poland ARCAs and have even gone to the effort of putting together a voting guide for the ArbCom elections. I'm actually quite concerned about the ArbCom getting out of its lane, and with particular editors who are encouraging them to do so. They need to handle conduct issues well (which they haven't at times recently), and getting involved in content is not only out of scope, it is potentially a really serious problem for content creators, especially when few current ArbCom members have any content creation chops. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. As ArbCom had been pretty good at keeping out of content matters (quite ruthlessly rejecting case requests at times) over the previous 5+ years, I didn't really notice that the current committee had reversed that position. Thanks a lot for the voting guide. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I thought at least an alternative view should be presented. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beeblebrox
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
 * Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

 * Thanks Gog! It's been a long time between drinks for that one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Gottlob Berger scheduled for TFA
Following earlier discussions, this is to let you know that the Gottlob Berger article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 6, 2020, the anniversary of his indictment. 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/January 6, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity
"You call his views "funny" regarding Croats having needed Serbs to free themselves? I guess you know better this issues than Tesla, that is really genious! I will not even dare to think about it, but it just passes trough my mind how denegrating your though is regarding all Croatian heroes that bravely struggled to mantain or expand their authonomic rights for the none less then 1000 years which Croatia spent without independence. Meantime, Serbs had medieval kingdoms, even an empire, kicked Ottomans out, started Balkan wars, First World War, won Austro-Hungary, all this by loosing a third or half its overall male population in each war, that´s just coincidence. Luck."

This was said by a user FkpCascais. An example of so many ridiculous statements made on that page. Is this guy really an active editor on Balkan articles? Jesus.... That whole page about Tesla's ethnicity and birthplace is mess of anti-Croat and anti-Serb nationalist tripe. Is it not in violation of Wiki rules?

For the record. Tesla was an Ethnic Serb born in what was The Austrian Empire Military Frontier, now today Croatia. I agree with the infobox as is and Croatian Nationalists are wasting their time.

Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_25_June_2019

So much of this page violates WP:NPA. How would I go about reporting it

Here is the link to the page. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Tesla page is a mess, and the talk page gets rather heated. I tend to avoid it for that reason. If you believe that there is a pattern of personal attacks on any page, the best place to report it is WP:ANI, but make sure you advise the editor you are reporting and provide multiple diffs showing the behaviour. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

 * Thanks Buster7, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Help
There is a discussion going on at the Easter Rising talk page about whether the rising should be considered part of the Great War in the infobox because it was significantly influenced by it. Can you please contribute? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

 * Thanks, Ealdgyth! You too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

 * Thanks Trekker! You too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

 * Thanks, onel5969. Hope you get a break over the holiday period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Peacemaker67: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thanks Donner60! You too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad!

 * Thanks Tom, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Again
Again and again: there is organized group who want to falsify history of brutal dictator Josip Broz Tito and related sources! I made just a correction but entire article is not neutral: can you look at that article? Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have worked on the article, but so far have only got to the point where he became leader of the CPY. I haven't gone beyond that as yet, or looked at the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding sources for asat test of india
Can you please provide sources if you have for asat testing of india called as Mission Shakti. I want to improve that article. Thank you 😊. Mahusha (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know nothing about that subject. Happy editing, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Peacemaker67!


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

Eddie891 Talk Work 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks Eddie! You too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk). --Hanberke (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Deor • Spartaz • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
 * A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
 * Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration
 * The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
 * Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Gottlob Berger, "one of Heinrich Himmler's key aides, who was responsible to a significant extent for the expansion of the Waffen-SS from a supposedly "racially pure" organisation to one which made a mockery of Hitler and Himmler's racial ideas by recruiting from almost all of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. Berger was arrested and tried for war crimes after the war, but got off pretty lightly in the end, despite his responsibility for several significant crimes."! - Still, happy 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. Must be one of very few TFAs on leading Nazis. Not a pleasant man. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bakassi conflict/GA1
Peacemaker67, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen that CPA-5 responded that they'd addressed the issues you raised in your review a couple of weeks ago. Please stop by when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm back on deck properly now after the break, will take a look shortly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

note re your page
hi. I just came across your user page, after coming here from the Mil History project. I really like your page!! by the way, how would I view the underlying information for your various service awards? (in other words, the specific works or activities that they are each for)? just curious. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, Sm8900. I have a subpage called "The Pool Room" where I keep all the various trinkets I've been given over the years. There is a link near the top of my user page. If you hover the cursor over each one, there is usually a short explanation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * hi there! that's terrific. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

posted request for volunteers
hi! I just posted the following request for volunteers, on your project talk page. Please feel free to let me know what you think. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.


 * If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.


 * and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!


 * For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!


 * Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing in your reply.


 * we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision to my own role
Hi. I have revised my own role at WikiProject History. I have added a note at the talk page to reflect this. Just wanted to let you know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not neutral
This your old edit is not neutral because the sentence reports an opinion of single obscure historian and not reports opposite opinions of all others important historians. I know several sources of historians who report Broz Tito as criminal dictator: this point was discussed in related talk page by many users and I hope in your neutral approach to the topic because I have no intention to start an argument or new dispute with third opinion regarding that bad dictator; you can see Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 11. You can read some sources of Broz Tito's crimes in user:Forza bruta/sandbox. Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The best place to discuss this is on the talk page of the Tito article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

update re wikiproject
Hi. it's been nice making your acquaintance here over the last day. I wanted to let you know about a bit of news. i am a new coordinator at WikiProject History. I took that role simply by volunteering for it. at this point, none of the other past coordinators are active there at all any more. I have over ten years' experience here, and I have a lot of interest in history topics. I figured that since you are the lead coordinator on one of the WikiProjects that is most active, and one of the most similar in focus to our on project, I would give you a heads-up. I would like to start getting people involved in WikiProject History. a whole lot of people signed up to say they are members there. However, I haven't gotten a lot of replies to my posts recently, asking people to just write back and let me know what their interests are, what they'd like to do, whether they'd like to be available, etc etc.

If you'd like to be involved there, we would welcome that. Alternately, i welcome any input you may have. if there is anything we can do for you, feel free to let me know. but please let me know any suggestions you may have, eg on ways to get things up and running, things we should be doing, ways to get people involved, etc.

By the way, I am already thinking of you as a quasi-coordinator for WikiProject History. Congratulations, you've been volunteered! lol all kidding aside though, given your experience here at Wikipedia and with running a great project, I'd be glad to have your input any time. and any role you wish to take at WikiProject History, you are welcome to do so. I'd be glad to hear your comments or thoughts on this. Feel free to be in touch. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is very interesting. I suggest you post on our project talk page to inform all our project members that someone is working at WikiProject History. There is a fair bit of cross-over between our projects, but I had thought yours was largely moribund. I'll take a look and make some suggestions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is really excellent. I am glad to have your involvement. In fact, I am contemplating creating a list of active co-coordinators, facilitators, volunteers, etc, or something like that. the reason for this is that given the project itself is moribund right now, and yet we supposedly have hundreds of members signed up, means that we need some means to call attention to whomever is actually active and actually available to help others.


 * what does someone do if they want to resume systematic Quality Assessment of history-related articles, for example? or if they need help with an article? Or if they need help with a template, or formatting, or coding etc etc? the least we can do as a WikiProject is provide some data set, or directory or something, of users who are actually active, available, ready and willing to help others on this. adding myself was just the tip of the iceberg.


 * my real role and title should be "admin coordinator." meaning that I will be glad to handle the admin tasks of actually trying to get the project up and running, and assembling a few people to actually do so and to help others. but then we should add roles for others such as eg people working on quality assessment, people who can answer questions, people who have areas they help with, people who know how to write templates (unlike me) etc etc etc.


 * at some point I may create such a list, and probably start by adding your name. is that okay? I hope it is. there is no extra work that you would neeed to do. I simply want to have at least two or three names provided there of editors who are active in a role to help others, and who can answer questions from other editors.


 * by the way, I will retain the title of "admin coordinator" for myself. this simply means I am the person who took it upon myself to do the actual admin tasks, update the page, contact others, etc etc. Anyone else is free to volunteer for this role and title, just as I did. it is simply a descriptive label to describe the sort of things that I plan or hope to do there. I hope that sounds okay. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally the term "admin" refers to sysops. I would just go with coordinator, that's what most WikiProjects use. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Honest
I consider you as honest admin but if you remove valid source, my actions for improve articles are complicated operation. For every single source and every simple correction, new section needed in talk page? Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest discussing this on the article talk page (which I watchlist), not here. For example, you need to explain why tributetoliberty.ca is a reliable source. But do this on the article talk page, not here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated
Hey Peacemaker. Thank you for taking the time to edit the Chetnik page pertaining to the MacDonal quote. It has been a quote used many times by people to deny the genocide Chetniks pursued during WWII. However there are still editors who actively on Wikipedia deny the genocide, even using that quote as an argument despite me presenting a number of reputable sources saying otherwise. Ironic as MacDonald denies the Serbian Genocide. Editors such as Sadko who seems to be an apologist as far as Chetniks are concerned and puts forward points that seem hostile towards Croats or Bosnians. Nolanfranyeri Is another editor that appears to deny the genocide as well. I’ve seen too much to still think it was good intentions and just mistakes. As I had a debate with Sadko on my page. If Tomasevich is not a valid source than who is? It seems to me that their is an agenda by some editors. And I suspect that the person who first introduced that MacDonald quote, in which MacDonald was arguing a totally different subject matter, had ill intentions to mislead readers. It really disturbs me to see editors with such aims. How have you dealt with these sort of problems? People pushing povs even extreme ones? Wikipedia is not supposed to be a political platform but a neutral wealth of information. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, frankly it is a poorly worded sentence in MacDonald's book, and I think the later quote is worse, and isn't consistent (as he claims) with Lemkin (or the Srebrenica case). Unfortunately I have not been able to find an academic source that criticises MacDonald's interpretation of the definition of genocide. Having said all that, his is a minority view regarding the killing, conversion and expulsion of Serbs from the NDH by the Ustashas, which clearly was genocidal in intent and practice. It is unlikely that any sources would consider the killing of Croats by the Chetniks to be genocidal in intent (it is usually couched as revenge or counter-terror), although some sources say the Chetnik killings and expulsions of Muslims in eastern Bosnia was genocidal. As to how to deal with POV-pushers, I tend to deprecate local sources (particularly those from the post-Yugoslavia period on all sides, which are often very biased) and generally use foreign academic sources like Tomasevich, Hoare, Ramet, Milazzo, Roberts, Pavlowich, Mojzes etc on controversial matters within the former Yugoslavia. If the POV-pushing is clear and persistent, and I can provide enough diffs, I take the editor(s) to WP:ANI or another relevant dramaboard for the community to deal with them. I rarely use my admin tools for anything controversial regarding Yugoslavia in WWII because I might be seen as WP:INVOLVED. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were in agreement with it being labeled genocide. Given you agree the MacDonald quote is poorly written. However Tomasevich, Parsons and Redzic claim it as genocide. It has been stated in multiple sources that Chetniks pursued a Greater Serbia over the region that is to be rid of any non-Serbs and targeted both Croats and Bosniaks. It being partly repisal shouldn’t mean it wasn’t perusing of Genocide. Revenge doesn’t negate it being genocide. I believe it was stated on the Chetnik page that mass killings in Eastern Bosnia occurrd by Chetniks before any significant Ustashe atrocities took place. If killings of Bonsiaks would be considered Genocide, why not Croat civilians as well? Chetniks didn’t specifically target Ustase sympathizers only. Some sources make the claim that it was revenge against Bosnians as some were aligned with the Ustase. Regardless   74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the description of what was done to Croats being referred to as genocide. That is false equivalence. What sources specifically say that the killing of Croats by Chetniks was genocide? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted three in my previous reply. See the citations. I don’t see how it is false equivalence. What do you call aiming to wipe out an ethnic group from a new established state? I fail to see how when this befell the Croatian population, the term doesn’t apply. Both Croats and Bosnians were targeted. As was any non-Serb. Far less died in the 90’s genocide yet it was still deemed genocide. I wouldn’t make the claim if I didn’t come across convincing sources. Also it just seems logical but personal opinion is irrelevant. I’m surpised you never came across, not one, source that called it genocide. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. Tomasevich makes a general comment about genocidal actions in his conclusion, then lists some mass killings. Tellingly, in his 1975 book about the Chetniks, he does not say their killing of Croats was genocide. The second one I can't verify, and Redžić doesn't say that about Croats, he is referring only to Bosnian Muslims. Can you provide a quote from Parsons? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon? On page 747 in his book War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945, he states that the use of "widespread genocide" was the reason for high amount of human loss in Yugoslavia and that it was also used in revenge. He then goes on about how 'Serbs perished at the hands of the Ustashe" and that "Croats and Muslims perished at the hands of Chetniks". He clearly is painting both as acts of genocide. He claims that Italians up to September 1943 and Germans thought the war assisted in this genocide. Partly independently and partly through puppet regimes. Also saying Italians used the Chetniks, for example, to assist in killing of the Croatian population in parts of territory under Italian control (conflict with MacDonald). As for Redzic, sorry I gave the wrong page, page 155 is the one. Here he details how "after 3 year long Chetnik campaign against the Croats and Muslims, conducted int he form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, to form an ethnically homogeneous territory for ther expansionist Serbian state" the order to incorporate Croats and Muslims into the Yugoslav army was "too late" and "unrealistic" as Chetniks became "desperate" for additional fighting power against Partisans. I am trying to get access to the page for Parson's. Will get back to you. Also, the wiki pages for list of massacres that were carried out in WWII Yugoslavia, there were a number of large scale massacres carried out by Chetniks against Croats specifically. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear IP editor, please be civil enough and stop badmouthing me, it is not your first time. you have been mentioned as well. If you have some sort of dispute or a problem with my views - bring it on, like a serious person would do. I did not report your remark that I was mentally unstable, or whatever the wording was (you will know what I am talking about). I shall not tolerate it in the future. And no, as Peacemaker said, crimes done by the Yugoslav army to Croat civilians can not be labeled as genocide, and most probably the same goes for Bosniaks (although the scale of crimes and massacres is much bigger, widespread and it's yet another shameful part of the WW2 in YU). Naturally, you will try to label me and whoever does not agrees with your POV as genocide deniers, but - be it on your honour, if such a concept interests you at all.  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  01:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in hosting a free-for-all on my talk page. Take your disputes to article talk or your own talk pages, not mine. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Note that IP's POV pushing/holy war has continued -  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  02:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are proving my point. I never called you mentally unstable. You are doing nothing but attacking me and it’s pointless. You claim I am POV pushing yet my edits are backed by sources I include. I said you were POV pushing and off comments in talk sections and based on your overall actions on Wikipedia not on the sole discussion of genocide. Claiming I’m on a “Holy War” is just laughable. You tried to use MacDonald’s quote to argue against Genocide. And using thebterms “crimes carried out by the Yugoslav army”.... That isn’t bad faith? I’m not engaging with you any further on this talk page. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I’m not interested in such internet drama. I stated an observation. And it seems more accurate now. My main objective is discussion of the sources I showed you. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

need some assistance
Hi. I aprpeciate your help and input recently. I wanted to write to ask if you might be willing to comment at WikiProject Council? I am trying to get that page to be active again. I really need some help and input. many people there have been highly supportive, but one or two recent commenters are questioning the whole effort. I could really use some help input from you and from some of your other coordinators, in other words from people who have xtensive and active involvement in active Wikiprojects. could you please let me know if that's okay? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in the WikiProject Council, sorry. I think you'd be better off trying to identify a few other editors who are interested in reviving WikiProject History. A few things that work for us at Milhist are having a monthly newsletter where we highlight achievements by individual editors, an assessment area where editors can submit articles for assessment/re-assessment, and a simple system of awards. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * hm okay. well, I do appreciate your reply on that. thanks for your input. I will give that some thought. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Destroyer Dubrovnik
Hello! I would like to ask why my supplement in Infobox of destroyer Dubrovnik (Premuda part) was deleted? This is proof for PU hull symbol on Premuda during service in Regia Marine - here. --Андрејевић (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As it is a Featured article, everything in the article needs a reliable source. I'm afraid that a modelling website doesn't qualify as reliable. If you can find a reliable source for it, it could be added. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this photo is from some italian book but unfortunately I don't know what book it is. This is a photo I have, it's a little better than the one on that italian site. → photo (Premuda) The destroyer Beograd (Sebenico in Regia Marine) had hull symbol SB, destroyer Ljubljana (Lubiana in Regia Marine) had hull symbol LA. Photos of Beograd with SB hull symbol are in Le Navi del Re (Achille Rastelli) and journal Marine Arsenal, Band 40, Kriegsmarine in der Adria 1941-45 (D. Freivogel) → photo (Sebenico) I found a scanned photo of the destroyer Ljubljana from a book but I don't know which one. Hull symbol LA is seen. → photo (Lubiana) PS. When we already discussing: Full battle load of destroyer Dubrovnik was 2884 metric tones. This is what German sources say. I also found old paper with data from the late 30's when in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia testing was perform with the displacement of the destroyer Dubrovnik, where the load of the ship was 2690 metric tons. → Displacement ;--Андрејевић (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those photos don't appear to be public domain, so they can't be used, and those without an identified reliable source in which they were published cannot be used for the hull symbols. Anything of Freivogel's is reliable, so the hull symbol for Beograd could be added with that reference if you know what page the image is on and it says the year when the image was taken. As far as the displacement characteristics of Dubrovnik are concerned, I will stay with Chesneau and Lenton at this stage, as they are naval specialist historians. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that these photos should be included in the article, but that they are evidence of these hull symbols. Maybe these pictures can be put as an external link. For Freivogel, page is 16 and date of first photo (no colored Beograd) is 1941, and second photo (colored Beograd) is 1942 (Beograd in 1943 had another type of camouflage). For this second photo we have one more suorce, Le Navi del Re (Achille Rastelli) page 172. One more thing, I found this site for Beograd from 1943. → Sebenico - Associazione Venus For Dubrovnik, I will try to find a book from which the photo is white-colored Premuda with black PU hull symbol. But it will be hard. For displacement I found this book with data of displacement (in metric tones). → Front page; Displacement The tests were conducted on October 12, 1939. → Date --Андрејевић (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We can't external link to copyvios, so unless the images are PD, they can't be external links. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, I can't find Le Navi del Re or Marine Arsenal on Worldcat or Google Books, so unless you can provide a full citation for one or the other (and a page for the former), I don't see how the hull symbol for Sebenico can be added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cont. Discussion on Sources...Again
From before the interruption......On page 747 in his book War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945, he states that the use of "widespread genocide" was the reason for high amount of human loss in Yugoslavia and that it was also used in revenge. He then goes on about how 'Serbs perished at the hands of the Ustashe" and that "Croats and Muslims perished at the hands of Chetniks". He clearly is painting both as acts of genocide. He claims that Italians up to September 1943 and Germans thought the war assisted in this genocide. Partly independently and partly through puppet regimes. Also saying Italians used the Chetniks, for example, to assist in killing of the Croatian population in parts of territory under Italian control (conflict with MacDonald). As for Redzic, sorry I gave the wrong page, page 155 is the one. Here he details how "after 3 year long Chetnik campaign against the Croats and Muslims, conducted int he form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, to form an ethnically homogeneous territory for ther expansionist Serbian state" the order to incorporate Croats and Muslims into the Yugoslav army was "too late" and "unrealistic" as Chetniks became "desperate" for additional fighting power against Partisans. I am trying to get access to the page for Parson's. Will get back to you. Also, the wiki pages for list of massacres that were carried out in WWII Yugoslavia, there were a number of large scale massacres carried out by Chetniks against Croats specifically. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that Chetniks were responsible for mass killing of Croats, they were. I'm uncomfortable with using Redžić for a claim of genocide against the Croats because of his ideological alignment with the Partisans and their propaganda against the Chetniks. I'll wait until you have Parsons before addressing Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To stay on topic I moved this discussion to another talk section....again.... I will get back to you about Parson's as I am having a hard time looking for that page online.74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cont. Discussion on Sources
Peacemaker67, I apologize for intruding on your talk page but since I was called on by 74.101.190.2 and  Sadkσ  in the thread above before I had a chance to reply, I thought it'd be fitting if I replied here.

I'm not interested in getting into an argument or an edit-war over this issue so I'm only going to be making one statement.

IP editor, you claim that I deny the genocide done by the Chetniks. Okay, first of all, it states that some historians contend that genocide was committed against Muslims. Though, even that is a little muddled since it's a quote from a scholar describing what others claim but he doesn't specifically name names. From what I can gather on the Chetnik articles, it's mainly from ethnic scholars from the Balkans who may have their own biases, but as long as they can be considered WP:RS I'm fine with it. Still, it's a minority view but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if that statement is accurate.

Now, I have seen no RS that state that genocide was committed specifically against Croats. I don't question the fact that the Chetniks killed a lot of Croats, and simply because they were Croats. However, you need to have RS that state that the Chetniks perpetrated a genocide against Croats during World War Two. Personal feelings, interpretations and opinions are irrelevant to this issue. That's now how Wikipedia works.

Yes, plenty of books talk about the Chetniks and the 20 December 1941 memorandum. I don't dispute that it calls for a "cleansing of national minorities" and a "Greater Serbia". The memorandum itself however, is not what we (certainly not Wikipedia editors) use to determine whether or not specifically genocide against a group of people happened. I don't even deny that the Chetniks perhaps tried to commit genocide or at the very least, ethnic cleansing, based on that. The question is, whether or not they actually did. That's why we rely on reliable historians on this subject before making such claims. Our own interpretation don't matter.

I should also note that the authenticity of the directive is disputed and whether or not it actually came from Mihailović. The memorandum should also be looked at within the context of the situation which is not something that's often done. By December 1941, the Ustashe had already set up concentration camps in the NDH and committed a large number of massacres against Serbs, by then already having likely killed many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. So, the desire to ethnically clean areas held by the Ustashe and others by that point need to be put into perspective. But that is beside the point.

There's also a difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Often people confuse the two or think the two are the same. By legal definitions, they are different, though ethnic cleansing certainly is a component of genocide. Ethnic cleansing is mainly the expulsion of a population. But various ethnic groups immediately think that whenever atrocities are done against their group, that it automatically makes it genocide. In fact, genocide is hard to prove. That's why when we do see an example of it, it usually receives wide coverage and recognition in scholarship.

From the editing you've been doing, you seem intent on trying to find ways to downplay or excuse the Ustashe crimes while trying to elevate Chetnik crimes. So it's clear there's a bias going on. I don't say that as a personal attack, that's just what looks like to me. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that if there's reliable sourcing to advance those beliefs. I admit that I am biased as well, but I always try to edit and present arguments based on sources and information that is available and refraining from inserting my own opinions. I don't make edits based on feelings.

The reason I changed your recent edit to the Genocide template, is because you added "Genocide of Croats and Bosniaks" as the title to the article link. Having it phrased that way is problematic because as I stated above, there are no sources that explicitly state that genocide was committed against Croats. Also, atrocities against Muslims were far greater in volume than against Croats, which is the reason why I suspect some are deeming it as genocide but not over Croats. Yet, you are even adamant about having Croats listed before Bosniaks, despite the fact that it's not in proportion to the crimes or even alphabetical for that matter.

I am somewhat sympathetic to ethnic POV editors because it often comes from a place of feeling like they've been wronged and some injustice has to be corrected, but I'm sorry that's not what Wikipedia is based on. I am actually opposed to having the Chetniks listed at all there to be honest, because as I see it, the genocide template is there to list the most egregious and clear-cut examples of genocide, not for listing cases that are dubious or held by a small minority of scholars. I copy-edited the title to "Chetnik crimes against Bosniaks and Croats" because the article that's linked talks about.. World War Two crimes by the Chetniks, mainly against Bosniaks and Croats. Notice how even the other listings above regarding the Nazis don't state "Nazi genocide against Poles" or "Nazi genocide against Soviet POWs", and they were killed in the millions.

I should add the Chetnik War Crimes, particularly the Genocidal crimes section is problematic. It's essentially a bunch of quotes, cherry-picked and mainly sourced to Croatian websites.

You were also reverted, not just by me, but by two other editors on the Mass Killing/Genocide denial page because in your fervor, you again wrote "Genocide of Croats and Bosniaks" while linking to a page that doesn't explicitly mention the denial of mass killings.

Hope that helps clear things up. I'm glad to discuss things further on my talk page. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You have made edits based on emotion and personal opinion before. On the Genocide of Serbs page for example. And have been reverted and called out by other editors for it. Strange you accuse me of doing that. You are using your own opinions in your response as well as edits you have made. And making claims of my character that are untrue. In interactions with me you did not use sources to prove my sources wrong. Never did I make edits that I didn't back up with factual sources. That is incredibly dishonest to say. And proving my initial point. Firstly, accusing me of downplaying or excusing Ustashe crimes is definitely a personal attack and false. Not once did I excuse their genocide against Serbs or downplay in any of my edits or talk posts. Including other events and actions that contributed to their formation and crimes is not excusing or downplaying. I included insight from Tomasevich, a well respected historian who made the claims. They weren't my POV or opinions or just my feelings. However you demonstrated such attributes by deleting parts of my edit taken from his book. Because you felt it wasn't correct. Based on what I don't know. Not my issue. Peacemaker agreed with the edit, is he also excusing or downplaying Ustase crimes? You almost alluded to him doing so in the talk page and I countered your reply to him. There is no such think as a justified genocide. A another editor had stated on that talk page to one of you. Would it be excusing and downplaying 9/11 if we acknowledge that The West's actions in the Middle-East contributed to it? Of course not. Doing so is a way to shut up dialogue and insight into where these terrorists group come from. A valid comparison as I personally view the Ustashe as a Catholic form of ISIS. I am also not elevating Chetnik crimes as I am editing based on sources I came by. Had I edited based on my own personal research then you would be valid in your claim. The editor who shall no be named, labels those who question Chetnik anti-fascist loyalty or opens discussion about Chetnik crimes as Ustashe apologists. And he claims I have no honor? Please. That was the posts of his that was the last straw for me. So my issue was mainly with him. You deny the genocide happened ( I mean this in a literal sense in that you don't feel there are enough sources that validate it). Fine. But when deleting my edits, at least include edit comments stating your reasoning. Also notice how I don't have issue with Peacemaker or other editors with disagreeing with my point. I have no issue with disagreement.


 * Yes I am biased in that I fear that groups of victims and perpetrators will fall between the cracks of history due to failed acknowledgment. Failure to acknowledge history lead to the atrocities of the 90's. Denial of Ustahse and Chetnik crimes lead to history repeating itself . And this is a place for facts, no matter how unfavorable or uncomfortable they make one's self. If you want some of the truth heard, you have to have all of the truth heard.


 * Also note, you claim one would not say "Nazi Genocide against Poles" yet you made a recent edit to the genocide templates to say "Genocide of Serbs by Ustashe" I simply followed your formatting. Also as for why Croats and Bosnians, that is the order the sources put it in. Genocide of Croats and Muslims. Most of the time Serbs, Croats and Bosnians is not written in alphabetical order. So meaningless point. I reverted your edit so that is why it went back to that order. I am not pushing anything with that. Other editors who reverted me did so because I did not include citation next to the link. I have provided multiple sources stating Genocide against Croats as well.


 * I have included RS that states the killing of Croats as genocide. Personal feelings, interpretations and opinions are irrelevant to this issue (Taker your own advice here). The sources speak for themselves.


 * Many of the sources are not "Croatian Websites" and the Chetnik page literally talks about the Chetnik Directive if 1941 to form a Greater Serbian ethnically cleansing of non-Serbs to which the Chetnik head leader was aware as per multiple sources. You even said you don't deny that Chetniks tried to committee genocide. But they never fully succeeded in finishing. Neither did the Ustashe finish. Thankfully both were stopped. But complete extermination is not what only defines Genocide. The Bosnian genocide was not in whole but still regarded a genocide as that was the intent. But you basically are saying to do believe that was the Chetniks goal during WWII. Cited sources saying so matters. I don't base my edits on my feelings. I explain my edits through citation of books or other documents.


 * In many of my posts, I explicitly talk about The Ustase Genocide and how the Chetnik Genocide was largely in revenge of Ustahse crimes. I also stated multiple times that the number of Serb victims was way higher than number of Croatian or Bosniak victims. So you point about context is moot. I make aware the context many times. By your logic, I should accuse you of excusing or downplaying Chetnik crimes. But I won't because that would be nonsense and opinion driven. Just because genocide is committed in revenge doesn't negate it was genocide. I will clarify this with a excerpt from Tomaseviches book in reply to Peacemaker.


 * My edits aren't citing my opinions. I made those edits because I had sources to present as backing them. otherwise I wouldn't have made such edits. I will not entertain this pointless argument of personal matters further. I am here to discuss the validity and strength of the sources I found. I am not looking to spam this talk page with such wasted energy back and forths. So I won't respond to them further.  74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As to not continue the disruption of Peacemaker67's talk page, I've responded to you on my talk page 74.101.190.2. Thanks. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding genocide template
What reliable sources state that the Chetniks specifically committed genocide against Croats during World War Two? I looked at the sources given in the genocide template talk page but it's unclear. You mentioned to the IP editor in a previous discussion on your TP that you were uncomfortable using Redžić for a claim of genocide against the Croats because of his ideological alignment with the Partisans and their propaganda against the Chetniks. Tomasevich doesn't explicitly state that the Chetniks committed Genocide against Croats. He doesn't even say it in his 1975 book about the Chetniks. Hoare's book seems to be more about the Bosnian Muslims. There's no quote or preview for the book available so hard to know. He is heavily pro-Muslim and his focus on the Balkans are the Bosniaks. IP editor continues to push for the wording of "Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats" when genocide against Croats has not been established by multiple RS. This is why I advocate for a less controversial wording which is inclusive. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let have this discussion centrally on the template talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let’s. Also I had mentioned twice there was a conversation on that talk page. I thought going to another editor’s talk page behind the scenes was a no no? As was stated in the past. On the given page from Tomasevich’s book, he literally talks about genocide and how the victims of this were Serbs by Ustashe and Croats and Muslims by Chetniks. It is unmistakable and painfully clear on that page. There is no possible question. You speculation on Hoare is just that, personal speculation. Not what’s there. He specifically talks about Genocide used as counter to Ustashe atrocities. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is going "behind the scenes". I posted it to his TP because he was the arbitrator between you and Sadko, and I sought clarification. You've posted many times here regarding issues. I assume you mean that you mentioned the discussion to me. You did once, when I reverted your edit. Sheesh. Anyway, I'll take it over there. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ustase
Sorry for asking this, but could you please change Category:Fascist organizations in the Ustase article to Category:Fascist parties, which was the original one? -- 191.33.124.106 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't about what the original one was, it is about the most appropriate category. The Ustashas were an emigre movement, terrorist organisation and political party, and I think the overarching Fascist organizations category is more appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Question
Since you are a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history I though I would ask you this question.

In the case of the Afghan-Sikh Wars, is a source needed for the result to display either Afghan or Sikh victory? Or can the result be taken from the fact that one side won all the battles in the war?

If you are interested, this is the discussion, under the section Source misrepresentation. In all honesty, I could care less who won this war, I am only concerned with Verifiability and avoiding personal interpretations. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day . We only use a result for the whole war that is in the reliable sources. It is OR to analyse the results of individual battles and decide on an overall result. Sometimes a good approach where there is legitimate disputation over a result can be to put "See Aftermath section" in the result field of the infobox and explore what the sources say in that section. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi I'm very impressed by your knowledge of facts regarding former Yugoslavia. Thank you for being objective and honest. Facts are facts and you are the only author I've come across who actually knows what hes talking about. I thank you for all that you do and would love to have an opportunity to meet you one day. Borislav Vucinovic

Borisdalj@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.69.251 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Borislav. I do my best. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Good evening
I'm not very familiar with navigating through the wiki page but I do have plenty of knowledge to add. Can we communicate via email instead? I would also like to stay anonymous but will provide you all the necessary documents to verify facts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.69.251 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

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

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Partial blocks.
 * The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news
 * Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating.  There is currently one template: uw-pblock.
 * When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration
 * Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Weigh in
Hi PeaceMaker, I am still working on sources as we discussed before. But could you weigh in on editing disagreement on Genocide of Serbs page which I thought we all agreed in few weeks ago? Als on the Chetnik page where I am being reverted with no explanation? An IP made unexplained edits removing mention of “reprisals”. Thank you. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look and couldn't see anything egregious. I strongly suggest you register, as remembering any IP address (assuming it is static) is difficult, other editors are more able to recognise a username. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a case of a rouge IP removing sourced material and when I reverted it, another editor kept undoing my revert even intentionally deleting “anti-Croat policies” despite the source backing up the term. They seemed to have stopped... for now. And yes I should make an account. The whole anxiety of articles inevitably being inappropriately edited or changed is ridiculous. Having to check back to see if it was done again. Not sure how you keep level headed. It’s great that the public can engage on here but also problematic. Especially in Balkan articles. So much bitter motives on here. POV pushing and trying to sway the public. I can see why me being an IP can leave bad first impressions.74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IP vandalism and POV pushing are very common on Balkans articles. I only watchlist WWII Yugoslav ones and I usually have to revert one or more edits everyday on several articles. Generally IPs in the area are treated with suspicion for that reason. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace
Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You are a coordinator at one of the most active WikiProkjects, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.


 * Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
 * If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
 * Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
 * Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
 * WIkiProject Town Hall,
 * WikiProject Bulletin Board,
 * WikiProject Water Cooler
 * Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
 * Town Hall or
 * Water Cooler
 * Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
 * Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.--Sm8900 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Peacemaker,

Thanks for the welcome because I joined the Military His. Wikiproject. I'm excited to be a part of it.

Thank you,

--Mikeduke324 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Enjoy your editing, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Cite format
I knew that you'd notice this; thanks for fixing it, although I can't see any difference between how I tried it and how you've got it now for the life of me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I find sfn easier. I suppose it is what you are used to. I started off using ref tags and changed to sfn after a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Greece
G'day, PM, I hope you are well and having a good weekend. Per the current conversation on the MILHIST co-ord talk page, the Battle of Greece article (currently a featured article) needs a couple of citations. I've marked these with citation needed tags in the hope that someone will be able to supply the required references. Unfortunately, this isn't really a battle I know much about, so I haven't been able to find any suitable refs; I wonder if you or might have better luck? Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day AR, my only area of knowledge (with access to related sources) regarding the invasion of Greece is with respect to the German ORBAT. I will take a look and see what I can find though. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I can reference them from Germany and the Second World War.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Greater Serbia
Hello PM. A few IPs have recently made changes to the article's lead. Do you think that the lead should be changed or do you think that the IPs should be reverted and, if they persist, a semi protection needs to be requested? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted, but if they persist with the edit warring over the wording and refuse to discuss on the talk page, semi protection may be needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Joint FAC?
Hey Peacemaker, once the Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship FAC is done, Sturm and I will have a gap in our joint FAC schedule (mostly because neither of us was paying attention that we were out of joint projects) and I was thinking this would be a good time for you and I to run SMS Niobe - how does that sound to you? Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I can put it up as soon as the Francesco Caracciolo FAC is finished. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Francesco Caracciolo FAC took a bit longer than I expected, but I just put Niobe up - don't know if you got the ping when I added your name to it, but if not, it's here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Money emoji
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Athaenara • DeltaQuad
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
 * A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news
 * Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present.  You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
 * The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Operation Retribution (1941) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Operation Retribution (1941) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 6, 2020. 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 6, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted in recent years, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Adelaide Meetup 22 – Friday 6 March 2020
WikiProject Adelaide Meetup 22 has been hastily arranged, spread the word!

DATE: Friday 6 March 2020

TIME: 5.00–6.30 pm

VENUE: Cafe Amore, 162-170 Pulteney St, Adelaide

Celebrate the long weekend with a meet-up and discuss what you'd like to see in the world of Wikimedia in 2020. Sign-up and RSVP here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Adelaide at 22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You received this message because your user page is in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia. If you do not wish to receive future notifications, please advise Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide.

Petar Bojović Field Marshal epaulettes
Good day! Why is a Field Marshal epaulettes Petar Bojović unneeded, but German, French, Polish and American Field Marshals have epaulettes/stars? August von Mackensen, Paul von Hindenburg, Fedor von Bock, Gerd von Rundstedt, Erwin Rommel, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, Ferdinand Foch, Hubert Lyautey, Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque, Marie-Pierre Kœnig, Józef Piłsudski, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Omar Bradley etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрејевић (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:ICONDECORATION, icons should not be merely decorative. Use of rank icons doesn't improve comprehension of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do all these Field Marshals have icons?--Андрејевић (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No-one has bothered to remove them? How does their addition improve the reader's comprehension of the article? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It enhances by allowing readers to see what the rank looks like, without placing the image in higher resolution somewhere further in the text. If already has the unwritten rule that everyone has an icon of their act, then let the unwritten rule apply to everyone. Recently the French generals received the icons of their general titles in addition to the icons of the Marshal's title - Franchet d'Esperey and Ferdinand Foch. --Андрејевић (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reader wants to know about the man, and can click on the link if they want to know what his rank epaulettes for his final rank looked like. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

NDH Zones Map
G'Day Peacemaker, I had another dig for material on the different occupation zones in NDH prior to 1943. I found a few more maps that look more accurate (all secondary sources though) and I also found this document. It is a translation into Croat of orders issued by the occupying Italian forces. It includes textual descriptions of the German-Italian demarcation line and the boundary of the Croat demilitarised zone (Zone II/III boundary). The descriptions are lists of towns/features. For the German-Italian one the listed points seem to be the ones on the German side (so Banja Luka, Jajce, Sarajevo). For the de-militarised zone they seem to lie on the line. Anyway I think I can now make a stab at something based on them and the various maps. Will keep you posted. XrysD TALK 23:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds great, XrysD. I'm looking forward to seeing it, I know it will get good use across a number of articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just checking - is it this style of map that you want? XrysD  TALK 13:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I am after. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK the Map is done. It's bigger than usual (8,752 × 6,890) and not anti-aliased to allow you to edit it without loss of quality - obviously any derived maps can be smaller! I actually found a copy of the original Italian map that defined the boundary of the Croatian demilitarised zone embedded in the PDF I linked to above, so the wavy nature is how it was. The German-Italian boundary was defined in a different way - just stating what towns and features (railheads etc) lay on the German side. So in that case I think that the edge is defined mostly by the boundaries of the districts those towns lay in (unless very large). This certainly reflects what you see in the more accurate secondary source maps and accords with the German practice in Serbia. Anyway, hope you can make good use of it :-) XrysD  TALK 17:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a dead-set legend, ! Thanks so very much for your research and work on putting this together. Greatly appreciated! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day . I just used the map on Momčilo Đujić with a pog for Knin, expecting Knin to be in Zone II, and found that it is showing in Zone I. Yugoslav text sources indicate that Knin was in Zone II, and I'm just wondering if you could double-check the Zone I/II boundary (the border of the Governorate of Dalmatia) for me, particularly around which zone Knin is within on the source maps. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker! I've checked in QGIS and Knin is outside zone 1 on my map - see this. I think the problem is with the NDH locator map template you are using. The new locator map has slightly different bounds to the map used with the template and this means that points plotted will also be shifted. The new bounds should be LatMin=42.38 LatMax=46.56 LonMin=13.40 LonMax=20.98. So I guess either change the NDH template to use the new coordinates and map or create a new NDH2 template. If that still doesn't work it means the map projection of the new map isn't rectilinear and I'll need to do a new one that is! XrysD  TALK 10:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can take a look at the template issue instead if you like? XrysD  TALK 14:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you mind, ? I'm a bit of a duffer with this stuff. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK it's done! In the end the original map projection was wrong so I had to re-render it. Rather than create a new template I have simply updated the NDH 41 and 43 locator maps. This means you don't use the new file I uploaded as an Alt now. I did a random check of some of the pages that use the NDH locator and all seem OK. And on your Momčilo Đujić article Knin is outside Zone 1 as it should be :) XrysD  TALK 17:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant, you are a champion! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've made one final tweak - I didn't think the default 1941 NDH locator map showed the zones very well. So I updated the first map I did to the same projection and shaded the zones as well as marking the sea boundaries. I've changed  Momčilo Đujić article to use this updated map - if you prefer it too then cool, if not just revert my change and go back to the default NDH 1941 locator.  XrysD  TALK 12:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Genocides template
Hi PM. It seems that there are disagreements between some editors on whether crimes committed by Chetniks should be included in the template or not. Since you have relevant experience and knowledge, you might want to take a look. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Operation Storax
Hi Peacemaker. I came across Operation Storax in Hawkeye's bot assessed sandbox. Would you say that it was a list or an article? Thanks.

PS. Things seem quiet on the coordination front. Is there anything I am missing which I could or should be doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Operation Storax should probably be a list in its current shape, but should be expanded into an article if other nuke test articles are any indicator. I would leave it as an article for now, in the expectation that it will be fleshed out one day. Re coording, not really, I see you are checking contest entries as you go and looking at ACRs to see if they are ready for promotion or nominators/reviewers need a prompt. They are our main jobs these days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Insight in recent page edits.
Hi Peacemaker67, I see you participated before on the talk page and wondered if you could look into a topic I brought up on the talk page. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the Jasenovac Concentration Camp talk page and article. OyMosby (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you have a chance to look? It seems out of place for the scope of the article. And I am unsure pf the sources for those quotes. Being are on the talk page I figured I’d get your input. Seems same quite was put on the Ustase page as well. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik

 * And what's the problem with Princess Olga of Yugoslavia?
 * What is the problem with commanders?
 * What is problem with this photo? This photo is the Public Domain on the Wikimedia Commons - here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрејевић (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * it is unsourced.
 * they are unsourced.
 * The image file page for File:Zerstörer_Dubrovnik.jpg fails to give an author and their year of death, which is required for that licence. It also has no source other than some online collection. It is definitely not PD based on the information available on the image file page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the external link clearly shows that Princess Olga is baptizing the destroyer if you ever looked at it. Here you can see Princess Olga clearly.
 * Armin Pavić, Vladimir Šaškijević and Emil Kopka are in the text of the article, only Mario Bartalesi is in the italian article.
 * Then remove that photo from the Wikimedia Commons. At the end the two photos from the 1936 voyage remaining for Gallery or somethihg else. --Андрејевић (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is to say that is Princess Olga? We need a text source.
 * Citations are needed for all information, and we can't use Wikipedia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR.
 * That is not my problem. There are plenty of images on Commons with dodgy licences like that one. You just can't use them in articles, especially FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you read the headline? The title video on British Path says that this is Princess Olga of Yugoslavia. If you've seen a photo of Princess Olga at least once, then you recognize her on the video hitting the wine bottle. Behind her is her husband Prince Paul.
 * What are you talking about?! Here you can see Armin Pavić, Vladimir Šaškijević and Emil Kopka. And this source already is in the article. Source already is in the article.
 * Then the other two photos from 1936 remain.They are already in the other articles. --Андрејевић (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The video isn't PD, so can't be linked in the article, per WP:YOUTUBE. It can be used as a reference though, so I have created a citation and added the fact. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There isn't a reliable source for the Italian, and a Commander section just repeats what is already in the article. I just don't see the need for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing one additional image, File:RN Premuda.jpg. There is no information to confirm that this is in fact Premuda, not information about when it was taken or who by. The link on Italian Wikipedia is dead. As far as I can tell, someone found this on the internet and uploaded it claiming it is Premuda. We need to do better than that with Featured Articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank You! Maybe this for video will be good this site?
 * Maybe if someone wants to see the commander's list without looking in the text.
 * Actually I was talking about these two photos - Photo1 and Photo2. For this italian photo, this is Premuda (ex Dubrovnik); I have a huge number of photos of the destroyer Dubrovnik and I can always recognize her. See this three photos: Photo3, Photo4 and most important Photo5 of the profile drawings from the Marine Arsenal of Zvonimir Freivogel. --Андрејевић (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That video link can't be used either. There is no indication it is PD, in fact British Pathe require you to buy a licence to use it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why anyone would need to see a separate list of commanders, none of whom are notable. It would be incomplete in any case, as we have no source for the Italian and cannot be sure there weren't other captains. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the space available in the article and the limited value of the two aerial images in terms of seeing what she looked like, I just don't see the need for them. The others have no information about their author, when they were taken or their sources, so they are unuseable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for First Battle of Dernancourt, "about a joint British/Australian defensive battle on 28 March 1918 which played a small part in stemming the tide of the German Spring Offensive of WWI. A Tasmanian sergeant, Stanley McDougall, was instrumental in defeating the only real German breakthrough of the defences, and was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for FAC review
Hey Peacemaker67,

I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at my FAC nominee, Marcian (FAC page). It has been going on for some time but is lacking in reviewers. Thank you very much! -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd be happy to if necessary, but are you expecting a support from A. Parrot? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Lee Vilenski
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Boing! said Zebedee
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

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

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Someguy1221
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news
 * There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous
 * The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Some stripes for you!

 * Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this
Hi Peacemaker, and thanks for all the bling. Now I'm starting to feel like a North Korean general. I recently reverted this edit. The editor who made seems, on a skim, to be making a number of near random changes to infoboxes. A number of topic areas seem up your street. Possibly some sort of intervention would be useful, but I have no idea what, so I hope that you don't mind me kicking it upstairs to you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks Donner60! Much appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

100th ARC pass
Hey mate, I hope you're well like me. It's awhile when we've seen each other for last and sadly I couldn't participate for the March Madness. Anyway I just wanna say congratulation with passing your 100th ARC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks CPA-5! Hope you're well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am, thanks for asking. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Operation Retribution (1941), "about the German bombing of Belgrade which heralded the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Over two days, damage was caused to about one quarter of the city, up to 4,000 were killed, and Yugoslav military command and control was paralysed, contributing to the swift defeat of the Royal Yugoslav Army over the following fortnight. The principal Luftwaffe commander, Alexander Löhr, was executed after the war for his part in Operation Retribution."! - "Finster", - what is that in English? "dark" (what my tranlate gives me) seems not dark enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! I think finster could also be "grim"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but probably not "grim night", no? (on the Main page, DYK, image of a very small light in a ... night). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Rumpler C.X
Checked it against B class and found it lacking a page number so redn to C. Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello!
Thank you for the warm welcome to MilHist! I am very new to Wikipedia (10 days). I was wondering how MilHist membership works? Is there a reputation system? Do I just signup to get into departments or taskforces? How do I submit articles for review? Also, is this really how people on Wikipedia converse or is there a messaging system?

Thank you for your time! SanLeone (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, membership is entirely voluntary, you can get involved in as much or little of our collective activities as you like. We run backlog drives (one just finished), a monthly article writing contest, and reward reviewers at the end of each quarter. We also have a project-wide system of rewarding editors for producing quality content. You can sign up to any task force that interests you. If you would like some guidance on writing your first article, I recommend our academy article on Writing a good stub, and if you would like another editor to take a look at your work and provide feedback, you can post it at our requests for assessment page. If you have any more questions at any stage, feel free to contact me here. Yes, this is really how people converse on Wikipedia! Enjoy your editing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this source RS?
Is Jadovno.com an RS? It looks almost like a blog. I have seen a number of edits added to the Ustashe and Jasenovac and Jadovno pages and some of the sources I am not sure if RS or not. Some direct quotes and witness account quotes. Could you verify? Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look RS to me, looks like a website for a local association of people associated with victims of the camp. No information about the editor-in-chief Dusan J. Bastasic. Suggest listing it at WP:RSN for a community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. This was the matter I had asked you to take a peak at on the Jasenovac talk page week or so back. An editor has been adding ne edits that seem to use questionable sources. I will check with WP:RSN as you advised. Still learning the process of all this on Wikipedia. Thank you and stay well. OyMosby (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tagged them for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I’m also curious about http://www.forum.tm/vijesti/revizionisticki-pamflet-igora-vukica-o-kozarackoj-djeci-3-6039 as among other newspapers used as sources for historical information, https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=37130 (this was used to cite a direct quote from a bishop who had seen the massacres) and is Edmond Paris RS? Reading up on him, it seemed he had an anti-Catholic bias and used the Independent State of Croatia to attack the Catholic church according to his wiki bio. Nor sure if you came across his works. These sources were recently introduced in the Ustashe and Jasenovac articles. I’ll put them on the WP:RSN page to see if anything can be determined. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * forum.tm may be reliable. hrcak.srce.hr is a portal for Croatian scientific journals, so anything on there should be ok. Paris is pretty heavily biased, and should only be used with care. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Tito's cabin at Drvar.jpg licensing
Hi Peacemaker67. I think File:Tito's cabin at Drvar.jpg is PD in the US, so I re-licensed it accordingly. Please let me know if there is something that I am missing. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the problem is that Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have freedom of panorama, so the building itself is still copyrighted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so it is not PD in those countries. Or are you saying that photos with FoP-USonly aren't really free? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't PD in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country where the cabin is, because there isn't FoP in that country. So AFAIK it can't be PD in the US because it isn't PD in the source country. I'm not familiar with FoP-USonly though. Perhaps can opine about whether it can be used in this case? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Photos with FoP-USonly aren't really free, but unlike Commons enwiki doesn't require images to be free in their source country. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so we could use FoP-USonly, ? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If hosted locally only. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ustase Article
Hi Peacemaker, you were mentioned in the Ustase Talk page. Also your revert was reverted on the article edits. Thought you might want to know. OyMosby (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for re-deleting the unsourced material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems much of it was brought back regardless. Also it seems some of the added material doesn’t match what the sources say. For example A Thompson song labeled as being about “Ustashe claimed lands”. Please take a look. Seems like opinion rather than fact. The modern day section seemed a bit problematic and concerning that it is falling through the cracks. OyMosby (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My main concern remains a few unreliable sources like Lituchy, and the use of marginal online news sources for much of the modern day material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Paris as well. Though a good amount of well sourced info has been added too. But there have been issues where new information was added to the Wiki article that isn’t reflected in the cited news article. And seemed like opinionated personal conclusions. Which is worrisome. For example the Thompson claim was restored by two different editors despite being false. OyMosby (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverts
Hi Peacemaker, I am having an issue with editors removing relevant content from Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. Given your experience with WWII articles, could you take a look? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito
Hi, I can agree that the two first books I mentioned are somewhat old, but the last one if relatively new, I am also viewing its PDF version. Will that book suffice?

As for changing most to many/some, I mentioned in the talk page why I did this. Will it be if I restore the references that I added, but only with a single, namely the third book? Nbanic (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with changing the sense of what a reliable source has said, but providing an alternate view is fine, but it needs to be a good quality relatively recent source that takes into account everything that is known from research over the years, rather than the rather hysterical and highly partisan stuff that came out after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not change it therefore in the last revision, but in my opinion it should be changed because it seems to be an example of bad sourcing. I explained it in more detail in the talk page. If you want, you can take a look at it there and if necessary, I can explain it in more detail. Nbanic (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not an example of bad sourcing. Shapiro and Shapiro is a reliable book focussing on the subject area. It is better than the one you are using for the alternative view, because that is a more general book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Shapiros' book is probably more focused to the area, but I was thinking more about the way the sourcing was done. I am not sure whether you checked the actual part in the book talking on that so if you have not, I can try to explain it. The book contains testimonies of people living in various areas in Eastern Europe about the events back then. Since various people have various thoughts, biases, and points of views, so to their statements. For example in the book you can find a lot of journalists from that time. It just happens to be that in former Yugoslavia all journalists with opposing views were banned from work, i.e. you had to comply with the Communist Party if you wanted to work there. More specifically, being a journalist was deemed to be a social-political task (in Croatian you were said to be a "društveno politički radnik" i.e. social-political worker)). Therefore, asking such people of what they thought about Tito is somewhat similar as asking a journalist from Nazi Germany working for e.g. Völkischer Beobachter what they thought about Hitler. Should they say that most people saw him as a good guy and, then using this in an article as this one, and sourcing it by referencing a book that holds recollections would in my opinion be bad sourcing. This is what I meant. I apologize if I did not state it precise enough. So, something like that be considered bad sourcing? If not, is it OK to find the opposite claim in more books and put it here as well? Nbanic (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no shortage of books that describe Tito as a benevolent dictator, including most biographies of him such as West. Peter Lane's 1985 book Europe since 1945 page 101, is another example. You seem to be very close to this issue given your family history, and I urge you to strive to achieve a neutral point of view with your editing. This is not the place to try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not doubt that there are numerous such books, but then it should be books like maybe the one you mentioned that ought to be referenced, and not the one being currently referenced there because that book contains biased memories one of which is referenced in the current version of the article. I am close to the issue in me being interested in Croatian history and dealing with a lot of data and documents. The editing that I am doing is precisely because I think that there seems to be lack of neutral information here, especially in the currently referenced book that I mentioned for the reasons I explained. Because of that, would it be OK to replace the potentially biased reference about Tito being an benevolent dictator with a reference to the book that you mentioned? Nbanic (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to do that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality
Hi Peacemaker, I agree with your edit that Aloysius Stepinac‘s nationality is Yugoslavian. So shouldn’t Ante Pavlić’s nationality be the same? Croatia as a true country didn’t exist during either of their times. When I attempted to edit I simply got reverted with little explanation. OyMosby (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we have to take our lead from WP:ETHNICITY. Nationality (in the sense of the state to which the person belonged, not the Yugoslav concept of nationality, which is often conflated with the republics and ethnicity) can be and usually is in the first sentence of biographies, but ethnicity usually isn't unless it is inherent to the person's notability. In Pavelić's case, it is certainly arguable that his ethnicity IS part of his notability, as he led a Croatian puppet state and was a Croatian ultranationalist. I don't think the same ethnic connection applies to Stepinac, to the same extent at least. His main point of notability is his position as a Catholic leader in Yugoslavia, but it is also arguable that his Croatian ethnicity and nationalism, and conflicted relationship with the Ustashas are part of his notability. At present I am leaning towards describing him as Yugoslav, but if the majority of the reliable sources describe him as Croatian, rather than Yugoslav, I'm willing to reconsider my view. What I object to is random IPs just changing it without discussion or providing sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but I am talking about something else. I may have not been clear in how I started this discussion. I’ll make a separate section.OyMosby (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality/Ethnicity
Just to be clear, I am not arguing about the Stepinac Page. I am using Stepinac as an example for the Pavlic page. But the Nationality section for Pavlic has him as “Croatian” which doesn't seem correct. Also should the lead not say “Yugoslav Croat” and Nationality section say “Yugoslavian”? Putting “Croatian” as a nationality seems pov to say that NDH and modern Croatia are the same. His nationality is missing from the intro. He was born in, became a lawyer and politician in, Yugoslavia.

To put it short. Is it fair to say Pavlic’s ethnicity was Croat and nationality Yugoslavian? His infobox Nationality is set to “Croatian” which seems incorrect. Hope I am being more clear. CheersOyMosby (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

ANZAC day
Hi Peacemaker67,

I hope all is well on your end, due to the current situation our country finds itself. As i am unable to attend ANZAC day commemorations today and tell the veterans in person, you were in my thoughts and i just wanted say, thank you for your past military service to keep the peace in the Balkans. Much appreciated.Resnjari (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Was pretty weird not being able to go to Dawn Service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Was super weird not to be able to go to Dawn Service. Stood at my doorstep for 15 minutes at 6am, as requested by StandAtDawn, looking at the silent street. Played the recording of the service at Scott Base about three times!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The only ones not physical distancing! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito
HI, I did not remove sourced content from the article. It was duplicated in the article so I removed it from the lead. It was/is also in this section: Evaluation As you can see the lead is too long. The content that you are restoring was added by a sock puppet user. I reverted the edits made by a sock puppet. Here you can see what I am talking about: Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic. User Nbanic was blocked for a 48 hour period and not long after that he created a sock puppet account. That kind of behavior only shows that user Nbanic is not interested in improving Wikipedia, but on the contrary, only interested in abusing Wikipedia. That kind of behavior by user Nbanic makes Wikipedia less enjoyable for everyone. The view that some consider Tito to be equal to Stalin is already covered in the lead by: "...his presidency has been criticised as authoritarian[4][5] and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised...". We should at least discuss this and not engage in repetitive reverting, and also take into account the disruptive editing and behavior of user who started all this. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy which states that edits by socks or possible SPAs need to be reverted on sight. Like all edits they are treated on their merits. These edits are reliably sourced, and should stand. I don't believe that the sentence you have quoted at all covers the material introduced by Nbanic. The latter is far stronger. The appropriate place to discuss this is on the Tito talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it should be discussed on the Josip Broz Tito talk page, but unfortunately I do not see that you engaging in a discussion, just reverting edits with merit and inadvertently helping a disruptive user to push his own agenda. And I am not saying that everything should be removed, that is clear I hope. User Nbanic was proven to be a sock puppet master and was blocked because of disruptive behavior. Now he is using another IP sock puppet. You don't believe that the sentence I have quoted at all covers the material introduced by Nbanic? I have quoted the exact same sentence. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for the "factory workers". After you reverted my revert, I tried again to Google differently and it really turns out that by adding efforts results in "efforts on factory workers" have a lot of results, while "efforts on the factory workers" has only one result. Thanks! Nbanic (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs Page
I see you put a temporary lock on the page. However there seems to be a particular user pushing a lot of information on the page, bloating sections, editing sentences that no longer match source or adding content not needed in the article. Some edits seem pov. Another user tried to cut down the bloat as well but the original users just adds it back. Can you take a look? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian hot potato
Half the Russian justifications for intervening in Ukraine reference the far-right groups that fought with the GErmans. You will note that the WP:SIGNPOST reports now a campaign by the Ukr Govt to add data to Wikipedia. Things are going to hot up on those pages. I know you've done excellently with similar fraught pages regarding the Balkans; can you sweep through, at least, the Ukrainian pages? If you need help, please ask, especially, who will rally to the cause, Nick-D, and I.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, will keep a weather eye. Feel free to ping me to any particularly problematic pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

UNdoing
Please, when You are undoing.. check whether someone raised issue on talk page first. -- Bojan   Talk  17:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what, how about you use edit summaries that explain why you are deleting information? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Why that is matter where did i put my explanation. Give me yours or stop reverting. I saw your knowledge on article Petar Baćović. You were keeping reverting me, it looked like Baćović could have teleportation device back in 1942/43... -- Bojan   Talk  18:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Socialist Republic of Croatia
Hi, today one of my earlier sourced content contributions on the article Socialist Republic of Croatia was reverted by user Tuvixer. In the description of the reversion it is stated that references like that need to have pages. I have the page numbers of course and I checked on Google Books whether they are publicly verifiable - they are. I am now going to put this content back with better the same references reinforced with the page numbers since this was the only requirement stated in the reversion description. I am saying this in advance because it seems to me that some of user Tuvixer's recent behavior in directed at denigrating every thing that I do including stuff as simple as grammar edits with no change of content meaning. So in short - should any accusation fall again, I am editing simply in accordance with the complaint that the references that were there earlier need to have pages - I put the page numbers now and they are verifiable. It seems to me that this should not be a problem. Nbanic (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. My sourced content was again removed without previous discussion and I feel as being a second class editor here. I repeat - the content was sourced, I even added the page numbers, and now there is another excuse, namely that the content does not reflect to the stuff that I used it in. That does not make sense. I neither said whether these terms are good, bad, whatever, I simply stated that they are being used and they really are. I checked the behavior of user Tuvixer and I have seen more people here on Wikipedia complaining about similar behavior from him. If necessary, I make a larger report on that because this does not make any sense. Since when is sourced content being allowed to be removed just like that? I mean, I put multiple references there on purpose to show that it can be seen as used often in proper historical literature. I am writing this before putting the references back and also changing the word commonly to word also since even the term socialist Croatia that was used there earlier is not necessarily a commonly used term. This is to address one of the grievances in the newest reason on the talk page for the removal of the sourced content that was there for a while. Nbanic (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I actually have some of the referenced books not in the paperback, but in the digital format, which I can prove if necessary by citing more content from there that is not available on Google Books and I can provide more information on the surrounding content. Nbanic (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Glina, Croatia
Hello, you seem like an admin who deals with Yugoslav War articles. Am I in the wrong here on Glina, Croatia? A editors asked for better sources and I gave them. Then suddenly another editor came with different criteria and accused me of edit warring and wants to lock the article fully to have their way....PortalTwo (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:1 Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)


Hello, Peacemaker67. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1 Signal Regiment".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've deleted it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about source use and context
What is your feeling about the following sentences added to the Genocide of a Serbs Page? I believe you are a part of the discussion there on the talk page.

As Misha Glenny noted, in the 1830s Croatian nationalism began an oscillation between Pan-Slavic, pro-Austrian and anti-Serb orientations. Many scholars interpreted Croatian national identity as the product of an aggressive nationalism informed by the political interests of social elites.

Cited Source: Bellamy, Alex J (2003). The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream. Manchester University Press

Firstly, Croatian national identity has been documented through old history such as the Kingdoms of Croatia that existed since before 9th century. Also on the same page of the source states that multiple scholars say that Croatian national identity can be traced into antiquity.

Seems the editor who incorporated this source was not being balanced in its use. Painting a slanted picture. There is no mention of Serbian national identity history in the Wilipedia page. Seems unbalanced breaking Wiki rules. It seems to be misused in my opinion to push a skewed narrative. There has been discussion about this ongoing on the article talk page too.

What is your view of the source and its use? Thank you for your time. OyMosby (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole article needs a rewrite. In the absence of anyone willing to do that, my focus is on ensuring that the lead and article is at least semi-balanced. I will take a look at Hoare and Tomasevich and add what they say about the origins of the Ustaše hatred of Serbs, which is what the Background section should be about. It should not be about the history of Croat nationalism in a more general sense. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about list
Hi Peacemaker, and I hope you are well. Could I ask your (and anyone else who may see this) opinion on how to best improve Presidency of the United Nations Security Council I have two main questions:
 * 1) Should I split it into a presidency and list of presidents article? I certainly think there's enough content to split, but an earlier time I tried to it was reverted. However, there's a lot more content this time around.
 * 2) What list style should I go with? There are three possible changes I came up with at User:Eddie891/Presidency, and I'd be open to applying any combination of these. The thing about putting images into the table is that, while in the first few years there are a lot of people with images, the further it goes along the fewer images there are of people.

Any comments you may have would be greatly appreciated! Eddie891 Talk Work 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac
Hi, I wish you had looked more closely at this edit, which only moved the sourced quotes to the relevant section of the article. Is the redundant "However, some claim the trial against A. Stepinac was "carried out with proper legal procedure"." something that really needs reinstating? Sparafucil (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at it quite closely, and you deleted reliably sourced information from Fine that gives one view of the trial. It is necessary that it be included, and it is not in any respect redundant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please slow down and look again at paragraph 1, 4th sentence, and then at paragraph 3 and the identical 3rd sentence. Not ideal for a lede, is it?Sparafucil (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news
 * Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
 * Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news
 * The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
 * created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia
Hello Peacemaker67. Please take a look at: I am guessing that you follow this Genocide article because you semiprotected it recently. Do you want to comment on the AN3 complaint, or perhaps close it yourself? The simplest close would be to mark it stale due to the age of the reverts, but if it is treated as a long-term warring case the result could be different. Perhaps there is some overlap between this dispute and the general complaint at WP:ANI. Neither of the two AN3 editors has yet been alerted to the DS. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
 * G'day . I will alert them to the DS and have made a comment there. I don't feel it would be best for me to close though. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Waterloo Bay massacre scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Waterloo Bay massacre has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 May 2020. Please check that 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/May 2, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for the justice you did to it, "an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community."! - A friend died in RL, and his obit sais today "keep telling stories about me and dare to laugh". Tough, but I'll try, - this is a start. He's borderline notable, obit on same page as Norbert Blüm, but I don't dare to face an AfD. We saw Faust Part 2 in Frankfurt, so an opera on the topic will be my memorial. He wasn't religious, so Penderecki's Credo wouldn't be right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Sorry to hear about your friend. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Block
Hi Peacemaker, yes I was originally blocked for accusations of sockpuppeting. However I had it cleared. As I did not use my accounts in tandem in edit wars or on the same page. The only ever instance was on one talk page when I didn’t realized I switched between two accounts. Not wanting people to associate the two I played it off as separate people. But I made one post with one of the two accounts. I did not show any attempt to skew the talk page with them. Aside from that instance I used the accounts on separate pages to avoid some users stalking my edits. So I was unblocked. Will be sticking with one account to avoid such messes again. Never intended to break the rules. Do my comments on the talk page remain striked out? Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as you have been unblocked you can unstrike them. I strongly suggest you do not use multiple accounts again or edit as an IP. You are very fortunate to have been given the benefit of the doubt in this case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just to clarify, in my view the use of multiple accounts was a policy violation but I was willing to unblock on a one account restriction, which hopefully will solve the problem. If there is continued use of multiple accounts after the unblock, it will be a violation of that unblock condition so there wouldn’t be a “third chance”. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Now that I know the rules more clearly about multiple accounts on Wikipedia, I will be sticking with just this one to avoid future problems. As I agreed. I will also make sure this account stays logged in permanently to avoid my IP being exposed or used. In fact I was planning to delete my other accounts before this all transpired (although as it turned out Wiki accounts cannot be deleted). So I am fine with never looking back at them. Thank you for the warning a lesson and giving me the benefit of the doubt TonyBallioni. You have my word this will be the only account that represents me on Wikipedia. Take care all. OyMosby (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

US copyright for AWM image
I expect that you've done more with AWM images on Commons than I have so I'm hoping that you can clarify the US copyright for me for this picture:. Taken in 1915, there's no publication data or author given. The AWM says that it's out of copyright, so I think that I can use a US PD-1996 tag, but I'm not certain since I'm not sure if it was ever actually published. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day . AWM pics are almost universally owned by the government (the AWM is a government body) so despite being out of copyright, we use the approach of File:Casualties from the capture of Leane's Trench.jpg. Suggest you use that, which obviates the need for a US tag. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate! I knew that there had to be a way past the US copyright issues, though I obviously didn't dig deep enough into the Australian copyright tags.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Hog Farm, all of them very interesting reads too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion.
Does this article Bookocide in Croatia seem legitimately formatted to you? Not familiar with the term “bookocide” and a search only turns up this article. First I heard of the term. Are you familiar with it? I couldn’t find any non-Serbian books on this being a “bookocide” that took place. I don’t doubt that book burnings happen. The background, terminology and pov style seems like an issue though. Given you work with new Balkan articles in the past, thought maybe you’d have a chance to look. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another of Antid's creations. "Bookicide" is an obscure and recent word first used in Croatia in 1998 in the satirical magazine Feral Tribune as the Serbo-Croatian word knjigocid, relating to the removal of over 100 Serbian books from a library on Korčula. I haven't looked at the article in detail as yet, and given the significant uptick in POV editing in the Balkans space at the moment, I probably won't get a chance for a while. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I read that article and the sources are portals or political pamphlets. I know that some books were thrown away, communist books, Serbian books, etc but compare this with events in the Nazi NDH it makes no sense, at least not without the acceptable reliable sources. What would be your advice regarding this article, deletion etc? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would bring the sources to WP:RSN for a community opinion on their reliability, pointing out in which ways they do not meet WP:RS, mention it on the talk page of the article as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Question, Peacemaker. Is it violating Wikipedia rules for me to ask you your opinion on an article? I was accused of such by another editor on my talk page. Perhaps even insinuated that Mikola22 is my sockpuppet or that I informed him to come here. Which as I told them, you all can verify for yourselves if I am doing such a thing.OyMosby (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is enough to look at article Bookocide in Croatia and everything is clear. It is the first time I read this article and it's amazing that such article exists on wikipedia. Without a single concrete RS, only evidence are political pamphlets. I still can't figure it out that this article is part of wikipedia, it is more in line with the war period and propaganda. So I don't need anyone to tell me what to say and write, this is a wikipedia with tens of thousands of editors and anyone is free to edit articles. What should I do @OyMosby, to run away from you? Therefore this is my wikipedia as well as from all of you. Mikola22 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion and the request for opinion by, I took a look at the article. The tone of the article needs some improvement, and due to that I might rewrite some parts. I am not much familiar with the topic, though if I find some info sourced to RS, I will make some content additions. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I encourage any interested editors to improve the article, using academic sources rather than news sites. If this has been an enduring phenomena, it would have been researched by credible academics, not just journalists. The source I linked provides some detail on the first appearance of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You and I were called out in the article’s talk page. Just thought you should know. OyMosby (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm used to Antid's rants, and generally ignore them. He has no insight into his own behaviour, and as a result, is unlikely to change his behaviour. I mean, he got a long TBAN (now lifted) and that didn't change his behaviour one iota. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I’m not. Perhaps it is better to just walk away. OyMosby (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My advice is to choose your battles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

R U
blind? Talk:Milovan_Đilas? -- Bojan   Talk  03:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've responded there. There are plenty of reliable sources that say Đilas was involved in "leftist errors" in Montenegro. I've linked three. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal
Hi - I am advising I have started a vote on your suggestion to remove all the guff from the infobox and replace with a link to the relevant section. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC). Just thought I would let you know: Talk:War_of_1812

Roman Emperor first line formatting
Hi, the user: Векочел (not sure if tagging alerts him so I didn't) keeps editing Roman Emperor's articles so that their whole name appears first in the lead. (and on all the other Judio-Claudian Emperors as well as the year of the 4 emperors one – you can see them on his contribution page) While he cites WP:FULLNAME, the precedent seems to have been set by Augustus in FA, who is the only FA Roman Emperor (to the best of my knowledge) and has his full name in the parenthesis rather than as the first couple words. (At the moment he does not due to Векочел's edits) Additionally after scrolling through 10 other Roman Emperor articles this precedent seems commonplace. Altering it would surely require consensus and then the changing of 71 emperors! I had already reverted some of his edits but he has simply re added the information so I came here because I'm not trying to get in an edit war. Am I in the right on this? – Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent removal
Hi Peacemaker. While yest there was a cited source, what is to be done when it is in the minority? Given that Nazi killings of Jews began in June 1941 and Ustashe killings began later that year? Unless the Ustashe did need begin killings first?OyMosby (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ustashas started killing immediately they took power in April 1941. This is well documented. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right. Reading closer I see the first mass murder occurred April 28th about a month or two before the Nazis began their mass murders of Jews. Sorry about that. OyMosby (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading the cited source it seems the author sates that if the estimate for when Nazis began the killings is correct, then the Ustashe genocide would precede the killing of Jews by the Nazis. The edit implies that the author is certain of the timing of events but they are actually deemed as an estimate and assuming the estimate was correct, as the author states. Small detail but heavy. I fixed the wording therefore.OyMosby (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Running vs Guarding
I took it that joint control/running of the camp and joint guarding are meant one in the same. The guards running the camp? Hence when the source said guarding as full role I took that as full duty of running the camp. My mistake if this was incorrect. OyMosby (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * One other thing, for the Banjica Concentration Camp article, the newly added “ which was under full control of the occupational forces” part after Milan Nedic’s government is mention. Do you think this gives the impression occupational forces had full control of the camp instead of full control of Nedic’s regime? It’s worded differently in the source. It seems added with the intent to downplay Nedic’s regimes responsibility and guilt in their actions. As the source states on pg 32 that they were overzealous and their crimes were in nature and gravity “close” but not “similar” to the Ustashe. The intro of the article paints a more sedated picture. In fact the article in general does. So it seems at least. A problem I have had with the article for a while. What do you think about it? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I essentially rewrote the article sometime over the last couple of years, so I know it reflects what the reliable sources say about the running of the camp. The Gestapo were always in charge of the camp, and the gendarmerie then the SDS helped them guard it, and eventually were responsible for all the guarding. But guarding doesn't include actually running the camp, it just means guarding (from escapes and from outside interference). The SDS also helped with executions, and the SP UGB also had a bit of leeway to make decisions about their own internees, but really had to clear pretty much everything with the Gestapo. The GNS was not anything like the Ustase, it was completely under German control and supervision at all times, while the Ustase had a free hand with most things, decided their own policies etc, although they were subject to influence from both the Italians (until September 1943) and the Germans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly a number of edits have occurred since your last edits a couple years back to the article. Those are the edits I had concerns with. I am not saying the article is entirely wrong, let me be clear. However it may not always have all information covered. For example the fact that the camp was jointly run by the German army and GNS was not presented until I added it. While content already their is reflective of the sources. New Information may always be yet to be included. So I hope you didn’t take my worries about the article as a personal attack on your writings. A number of other editors made changes to your work in the intros and body. Not sure if you had the chance to look more in depth the past two years edits.


 * My concern is what may be missing. As for my comment, the new line I referred to was entered by another editor recently, not yourself. As well as the recent edits made to the article which don’t appear to be done by you. Also I meant the articles dealing Milan Nedic’s regime and collaboration on Wikipedia in general not the Banjica Camp specifically that I have had concerns about. While you may have rewritten some of them, lately a lot of changes were made by other editors. That content is my concern. As well as what information or sources may be missing potentially that you or I may not be aware of. As for claims of the regimes collaborators being “close” in comparison to Ustashe, this was historian Israeli’s viewpoint on pg 32 of his book. Claiming that GNS collaborators didn’t seem resistant to orders. And in fact responsive. He was cited in the intro. I do not claim they were the same as the Ustashe. Absolutely not. Recent edits to the articles were my concern. And articles such as Milan Nedić, Holocaust in Serbia and Milan Nedić’s regime especially in recent edits in the past weeks appear to downplay their complicity and culpability (in their role in the Holocaust again not the camp specifically). Not sure if you see the same thing occurring on Wikipedia. Do collaborators bare responsibility in their roles? Do the articles about Nedić, his regime, the Holocaust in Serbia and collaboration appear to be overall accurate to the extent of Serbian collaboration? I don’t know if you had done most the writing of these article but keep in mind recently a number of edits were made to them by various editors hence why I ask. Also because you appear far more knowledgeable on the subject and neutral so I trust your views and judgement. It’s why I tend to come to you with questions. As I don’t fully trust my own probable biases. I hope I’m a bit more clear this time. OyMosby (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, I understand now. Yes, I am concerned by the level of POV pushing on WWII Yugoslavia articles recently by editors who are demonstrably not editing neutrally. Some of it is getting close to being brought to the attention of ANI or ArbCom. I haven't really done much work on the Nedić, GNS, and Holocaust in Serbia articles, although I watchlist them and try to revert the more egregious nonsense. In the first instance, I will review the recent changes to the Banjica camp article as that is the one I am most familiar with. When I get time I'll look at the others, but there are a lot out there and frankly, I'm busy in the RW and I'm outnumbered here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry, my mind runs faster than my fingers. And I tend to over explain things which may only make the ideas I try to get across all the more confusing. If you happen to get a chance please do review the changes that were made as well as the state of the other articles. I know you are quite busy. You took the ”outnumbered” bit right out of my damned mouth. I really don’t know how you stay sane on here. At times it feel like it’s David vs Goliath and I come close to just quitting Wikipedia. (I took a break for a while) I’m glad you continue your work. You pretty much are outnumbered on this part of Wikipedia and that concerns me the most honesty. The war ended on the Balkan battlefields but it appears not totally. It continues in a pov war on the internet. I wish it would just cease. I guess your peacekeeping duties continue, haha. By the way I read your bio where you were interviewed for Wikipedia. Although I’m not an Aussie, but a Yanky. Thank you for your service. I’d hope to learn more about you experiences in the military one day if the opportunity arises. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the welcome to the MilHist project, Peacemaker67! Looking forward to adding content in coordination with project members.Siddsg (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, if you have any questions, feel free to post here! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Commissioner Government

 * You know, you are one who is disruptive. I think I prove I don't lie and I know better history of my country than you. If it something forgotten by Tomasevich, it doesn't mean it is untrue. In article on Miloš_N._Đurić there is whole paragraph on his rejection to sign appeal. -- Bojan   Talk  21:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then, after you have verified that that material in another article actually appears in the reliable source in question and is accurate and reliably cited, add the citation when you add the material, . Antid has restored the material and added a citation to a reliable source (thank you, ), which is what you should have done when you added it. Commissioner Government is an FA, which means everything added to it absolutely must have a citation to a reliable source, no exceptions. There is a pattern of you adding uncited material and also removing reliably sourced material from Balkans articles (which a quick search of my contributions demonstrates). I suggest you start doing what is expected, or expect to be taken to ANI for disruptive editing. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

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

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration
 * A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ismail I
Thank you so much for copyediting Ismail I of Granada, and apologies for those grammar mistakes. HaEr48 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I won't do the GAN after the c/e, but it should sail through. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute
Please see Talk:Macedonia naming dispute. A number of fairly senior editors are reverting each other on this page. One of the users who is concerned about 'Macedonia' versus 'North Macedonia' appealed on my talk page for assistance. Since it would be tedious to take this through AE, I thought I would see if a different admin like yourself (perhaps uninvolved like me), who knows something about the Balkans, would like to provide some words of wisdom on the talk page to the disputants. The underlying problem is that WP:NCMAC is supposed to be the solution of the dispute, but that page still has some grey areas. Or at least it is puzzling enough that not everyone understands. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries Ed. I've protected it and will drill down into the 2019 RFC and see if I can explain it in a clearer manner and suggest a solution. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This barnstar is for you!

 * Thanks, you are very welcome. Sometimes it takes someone uninvolved in the dispute to look closely at existing consensus and policies and come up with a third solution acceptable to all parties. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Page move
I am contesting your page move for Hilliard's Legion at WP:RMTR. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the article back as requested because recent controversial bold moves are automatically restored to the previous title. Feel free to start a move request on the article's talk page if you wish. Station1 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for yesterday's Milorad Petrović, "about the commander of the Royal Yugoslav Army's 1st Army Group during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Roy Inwood scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Roy Inwood article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 14, 2020. 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 14, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and John Leak article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 23, <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  10:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I should congratulate or commiserate with you over having two TFAs in a month! I've watchlisted both. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, it can be a bit hectic, but at least they aren't Balkans ones... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Seal Team Six
Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Konli17 (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough knowledge of the sources to chime in there, unfortunately. Good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not his wacko fringe theory position, though I was coming here to notify you that I started a question about that at the fringe theory noticeboard as well, so let’s consider that done. I am required to notify you. But FYI, the one at NPOV has to do with the term “Indian”, and the long quote about how untrustworthy those Indians are. Elinruby (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming American Civil War Units
Uh, why are you renaming ("standardizing") the RI regiments and removing volunteers. Current Civil War convention uses the Volunteer to differentiate between the Volunteer regiments and the militia regiments. Instead of using the actual official title, which would be, for example, "1st Regiment, Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry," it is allowed to use "1st Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry." "Volunteer" is a crucial identifier in differentiating between militia and Continental 1st RIs. Please see Renaming Massachusetts Civil War unit pages discussion on my talk page with Historical Perspective 2 and Kges1901. Hhfjbaker (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion. Clearly military unit titles need to provide an indication of their size, so regiment is needed and the standard military unit title format across WP is <name/state> . Many ACW regimental titles such as 1st Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry do not even say they are a regiment, and this is subpar on precision (lacking size), and subpar on concision (Volunteer is unneeded, as far as I can see). 1st Rhode Island Regiment (ARW) and 1st Rhode Island Infantry Regiment (ACW) are not the same title, and a hatnote on each can sort out any confusion. Can you link to a RI unit article with the same name as the ACW ones you are referring to? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't "regiment," it's the removal of "Volunteer." See 1st Rhode Island Regiment, 1st Maryland Regiment, 1st Pennsylvania Regiment, and 1st New York Regiment for examples of how Volunteer tells the reader that it's a Civil War U.S. Volunteer regiment. Thx. Hhfjbaker (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these units you have listed have "Infantry" in the title like the ACW ones, or in their alternative titles per the articles. Volunteer just isn't needed. Hatnotes can do the job easily. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust in Serbia Article
The The Holocaust in Serbia article was recently changed to The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia without any RfC or consensus. How did that happen? Doesn’t seem proper. The editor who changed it interestingly is for the The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia article to be changed to Croatia not German-Occupied Croatia....When the individual is confronted they claim an RfC can be made to change their edit. Bit backwards I think. Seems like a pov push case to downplay collaboration. It looks like a WP:POINT edit done in response to the Holocaust in NDH naming. A spite edit. Not to mention a number of editors do not support the change. Personally I think it should be “Holocaust in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia”. Which is the actual name of the territory. Would I be violating a rule changing it to the name I propose? OyMosby (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I actually was never comfortable with The Holocaust in Serbia because that title implies that there was a country called Serbia at the time (which there was not), or that the article is about the Holocaust in the territory of the current country of Serbia, neither of which is correct, and the latter of which would be ahistorical IMHO. I'm happy with it as is. For the exact same reasons, the NDH article should remain at The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia. It cannot be at The Holocaust in German-occupied Croatia because the NDH was a country, a puppet state of course, but still a country, and the Italians also occupied part of it from 1941 to 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Peacemaker, I never said to go back to the old name “Holocaust in Serbia”. My issues were as follows:


 * (1) Why was there was no consensus or RfC for what the new name should be? Number of editors were not in favor in fact.


 * (2) Why not use the actual name of the territory making it “Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” as by your own arguments, Serbia was not a country at the time with same borders. German-occupied implies it was a country with same modern borders occupied by Germans. Germans redrew the borders. TMCS would be in line naming wise with the other Holocaust page. It is also the name used on it’s own article. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia


 * (3) As for your point about Croatia, if German-Occupied Serbia is to be kept than German-Italian-Occupied Croatia would be valid. As the Nurnberg Trials stated. It was concluded that the Independent State of Croatia was not a sovereign entity capable of acting independently of the German military, despite recognition as an independent state by the Axis powers. According to the Tribunal, "Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country". Otherwise NDH would never have been installed nor would the Ustashe be put in power. This is not to say that they didn’t enjoy more freedom and autonomy compared to other occupied territories. Still, it is evident that to be consistent, one cannot be called occupied and the other not.


 * I am for “Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia” and “Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” as the article titles. I have held this position since June 2nd when the RfC was started. I hope I am a bit more clear now. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first, but accept the current title for now as it is better than The Holocaust in Serbia, although I would prefer The Holocaust in the German-occupied territory of Serbia which would be clearer that it was an occupied territory with defined borders, not a country with similar borders to modern-day Serbia. But this is unlikely to fly because there are editors who prioritise concision over clarity in article titles, and no doubt also some POV-pushers would prefer The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia because it could still be read as implying that Serbia was a country (despite the clear evidence to the contrary). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but why not The Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, the actual name of the territory as we are using official names for entities? And as I provided in point (3) of my reply, why mention the occupation of one territory and not the other? As courts ruled Croatia to be occupied by Germany. Surely then it should be made known in the title that NDH was installed by Germany? OyMosby (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking your last point first, because they were fundamentally different. One was a puppet state that ran itself, made its own laws under its own initiative, but had Axis troops occupying it, the other was an occupied territory, not a puppet state or even anything like one, the collaborationist governments ran only under the direct supervision of German forces right down to district level. Equating the two is just wrong, and is frankly a POV used by people wanting to claim that they were as bad as each other, which they were not. In relation to your first point, the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is a terrible compromise title that we ended up with (see the talk archives) as a result of POV-pushers wanting it to be given a title that indicated it was a country. So we used the official title, which is rarely a good idea, as UCN usually applies, and a far better descriptive title was needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how there would be equating of the two. Saying both territories were occupied is not saying the same or equal scope of brutalities occurred nor controlled to the same extent by Germany. One is a territory, another a full on state. But it’s not as if Nedic’s regime and collaborators were not volunteering to take part in the Holocaust either. Again of course not at all equal to the Ustase. Just as Germany, Hungary or so on were not all equal but their names are used for their Holocaust articles. Also should we ignore the Nurnberg Courts findings? Just figured using official names (as I was for NDH) would makes most logical sense.


 * As for you mention of an old talk page discussion, why would using the official name be a bad idea? Just curious. I mean Independent State of Croatia wasn’t exactly completely Independent but relative to other Yugo territory it definitely was. But it was the official name. Is there something I should look out for as apposed to just going with the official names? What have you found sources to use as the most common label? OyMosby (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we use the common name or use a descriptive title when the common name isn't clear per WP:ARTICLETITLE. The common name of the German-occupied territory of Serbia isn't clear, see the section in the article that shows how many ways it is described in reliable sources. This is a completely different situation from the NDH, where NDH is the clear common name, and precisely differentiates it from modern Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point. Though isn’t the common name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia not German-occupied territory of Serbia ? It seems straightforward and differentiates from modern Serbia.OyMosby (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is definitely not the common name in sources (it is a translation of the official name in German), which is why a descriptive name would be far better, but after the last brouhaha, I have no interest in reviving that particular fight, as we will probably end up with something worse. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, so it’s a loose translation of the German name, not actually an official name. I assumed based on the article name for that territory. Which proves your point how it’s problematic. Should be changed. But as you said apparently it was a shit show in the talk page. Thanks for being patient and explaining it all out, Peacemaker. I appreciate it. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no POV pushing, claiming that a rational and well-founded move (as explained above) like that new article title is "POV" is really problematic. "to downplay collaboration" you better elaborate this part, with good arguments and diffs, or otherwise I'll have to take another way in order to protect my integrity, as I shall not have some random yankee questioning my personal views and my family's role in WW2, which cost us a lot! Was that clear?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you two want to have a stink, take it elsewhere. I've made my position clear on both article titles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not interest in using another editor’s page for this sort of fight and ridiculous conclusions.OyMosby (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about if it is a good thing to make a proposal somewhere to name all Genocide articles in line with the political entities of that time rather than with today's countries. Or it might be better to judge case by case instead of all with the same rationale. Something worth thinking about. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty major project, and you will get a lot of pushback from those that prioritise concision over precision. I'd just be happy if the Yugoslav ones were better titled, and leave the others to their own devices. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a Wiki-wide proposal could start a large-scale Wiki war. That is why a case by case stance might be a better way to follow. That way Balkan Genocide articles can have proper names regardless of what happens with non-Balkan counterparts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don’t see much luck with that. Seems every edit leads to pandemonium on Balkan articles. It’s getting to my final nerves honestly at this point. OyMosby (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 - not following wikipedia policy
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
 * Thanks, I've commented there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav government-in-exile
I believe that all goverment-in-exiles should have an infobox. {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm relaxed about that, as long as it is Template:Infobox executive government. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Malcolmxl5
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg John • TheCoffee • Tim!
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bbb23

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

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news
 * Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
 * The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * You are very welcome! Great to see people stretching themselves and putting their work up for review! I'll take a look at the ACR soon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

 * Thanks Zawed! Always keen to help people get started in the quality processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

George Gosse
Hi Peacemaker67. I see the above is at FAC. It's not within my usual area of expertise but I note that Michael Ashcroft's book has some additional personal details: Some of this might be trivia and I am not sure how Ashcroft's book is considered by professional historians, but just thought I'd let you know. Also just noticed there looks to be a citation missing after the third paragraph of "World War II"? - Dumelow (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Date of wedding
 * That he offered his services to the RAN on 1 September 1939 and was refused
 * It has him at HMS Collingwood before King Alfred
 * It has him at President for mine training (before Lanka)
 * Notes his 1940 appraisal as "below average, for whom it was doubtful a niche could be found"
 * Notes that the other two Oyster mines also detonated after the primer was removed.
 * Joined the VC and GC Association in 1964 while in the UK for reunion.
 * Has a quote from Sir John Smyth, 1st Baronet stating: "he always lived right on top of the world, as though every day was his last".
 * That's great, thanks Dumelow! I'll have a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, ! Thanks for finding this. Have added some good detail from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, glad it was of help. He's written a series on VC recipients as well, I don't have those but I believe them to be similar in providing short bios of each recipient - Dumelow (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

/* No */
No: again and again; Shapiro has personal opinion and I propose to eliminate that fake in introduction! You can read my second email to you: if you insist, I will start a dispute under wiki's rules. No dossier or report are in source by unknown Shapiro! Do you understand difference beetween neutral form and tendentious form? If you don't understand, I will start a dispute under wiki's rules. Read my second email to you: I offer to you a friendly approach to the point with sources by books of Rudolph Rummel who is a master for all historians. Again and again: Shapiro is not reliable author and he is not historian. Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where reliable sources (which Shapiro is) disagree, we compare and contrast them, we don't pick and choose which ones correspond with our own opinions. Instead of quibbling over one word in the lead, why don't you start working on the body of the article, which needs work? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment
Hello Peacemaker67—Thank you very much for all your hard work with the 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment. I suspect getting a GA rating will be easy after going through all your comments, and I am sorry you had to make so many. I'm almost through your list—I'm at Shenandoah Valley. I will remove the small number of citations from Cox. It is possible that his higher number of deserters includes those from the failed 19th PA Cavalry that was moved to companies L&M of the 18th PA Cavalry. One comment on the casualty counts: I have made the changes for numbers less than 10. However my confusion is the result of what the MOS says, under the Notes and exceptions part, "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7 and 32, but not ages were five, seven and 32." Anyway, I want to be consistent with whatever WikiProject Military history recommends. TwoScars (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day TwoScars, you are welcome. Ping me once you've finished. Exactly, once you've addressed my comments, I would be happy to review it for GAN if you nominate it. I doubt I'll find much more. It is pretty clear to me that the preference in the MOS, expressed in the first, stand-alone sentence of MOS:NUMERAL is that "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.", followed by "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Whilst there is an exception under MOS:NUMNOTES, my personal reading of it is that the primary MOS guidance is words are preferred when they are mixed. But strictly speaking, you don't need to follow what I'm suggesting, and can follow the exception in NUMNOTES if you wish. Another factor is that you can't use integers to start a sentence, so I think the weight of the MOS falls on the side of using words. But I stress that is just my view. The goalposts do get moved occasionally, of course, because there are those that tweak the MOS over time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

7th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Union)
Thanks for reviewing the article for B class. Your name change is logical, however please read on. Currently, most Missouri Union cavalry regiment articles follow the naming convention "Nth Missouri Volunteer Cavalry". The exceptions are the 1st and 4th, which have the word "Regiment" at the end, and the 8th which is different. When I created this article, I followed the pattern already used for naming the majority of Missouri Union cavalry regiments. All the "What links here" point to the original name. The infantry units follow a similar pattern and there are over 30 of them, so changing all the regiments to a new standard promises to be a tedious job that I have no desire to try. Thanks for your other edits that improved the article. Djmaschek (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. There is a currently undergoing small project among several editors moving ACW articles to a standard titling that reflects normal military unit titles, including the size of the unit at the end of the title, and dropping "Volunteer" is it is unnecessary to meet the precision requirements of WP:TITLE. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for the discussion and progress. One of the editors involved will get to the Union Missouri units soonish I'm sure. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the word "Volunteer" either. I will stick to Illinois and Texas units, though I'm not quite done with some Missouri Union artillery batteries. Djmaschek (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen Confederate units with "Volunteer" in the title too, so it does nothing to differentiate the Union and Confederate units, and they were all volunteers anyway. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * You are most welcome, . I am finding ACW units quite diverting from patrolling the POV-warrior-infested WWII Balkans pages... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive

 * Cheers mate! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi PM, hope you are keeping well. I have nominated my article Manilal Dwivedi for Peer Review. See, Peer review/Manilal Dwivedi/archive1. It would be great if you review it and suggest some points. Very soon, I will nominate it for FA. If you are busy, please feel free to say NO. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I would be very happy to. A bit busy at present, but will take a look over the weekend or early next week. It's the least I can do to thank you for all the awesome work you do at RSX! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you! --Gazal world (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your take?
Was Operation Storm an ethnic cleansing campaign as described here? 200,000 expelled? You have done editing on the subject so figure I’d ask.OyMosby (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are better sources, and although it is contested, I understand the general academic consensus is that it was ethnic cleansing; see and Croatia Since Independence: War, Politics, Society, Foreign Relations p. 464. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see though aren’t Herman and Peterson considered controversial for denial of the Bosnian Genocide as mentioned on the Bosnian Genocide Denial Page? Are their more neutral sources? On the Op Storm page it states exodus instead of expulsion and that the ICTY ruled it not cleansing hence why I was confused by the List of Ethnic Cleansing Campaigns page edit. I now cases of ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred during the operation but wasn’t sure if the entire operation itself was labeled as such. OyMosby (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the genocide issue, but a reliable source can be controversial on one issue but not on another. In this case, Ramet et al agree it was ethnic cleansing, and there is this and this as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Roy Inwood, who "won his VC during the Battle of Menin Road in September 1917, for eliminating a couple of German machine gun posts. He went on to serve during WWII as a military police warrant officer running detention barracks on the home front. Unlike the many Australian VCs held by the Australian War Memorial, Inwood's is displayed in the Adelaide Town Hall."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks Peacemaker67. Sure, will ping you if I need help with more articles.Siddsg (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, you're welcome. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you be able to help with this page...Brigadier Vijay Kumar Berry. Thanks!Siddsg (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, . Do you have copies of the relevant page(s) of Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, here it is... Thanks, Siddsg (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that doesn't work for me, I've reached my Google Books limit on that book. You don't have a physical copy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. How do I share it with you?Siddsg (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve sent you an email, just reply with scans or pics of the pages. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have mailed you the scan. Thanks!Siddsg (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I take there is just the one page? If so, got it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The GBooks preview I see shows p. 110 and p. 111 as being about him. When google tells me that I've reached a limit, I've found that scrolling far away from that page and then returning to it will usually reset the limit. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC){
 * Thanks Eddie. All done now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, you are very kind! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback RE Tucker 1993
Thanks for your feedback on the use of Tucker in the 3rd and 5th Missouri Infantry Regiment articles. I personally like popular history (my interest in the ACW was actually brought on by Bruce Catton), and I have to try to make sure that the articles I work on don't turn into popular history, as I like my anecdotes and eyewitness quotes. I'll need to try to trim down the usage of Tucker in the 5th Infantry article, although the 3rd Infantry is less popular history (and isn't going anywhere beyond ACR), so I'm less concerned about that one. You've done a lot to help me learn how to write quality MILHIST articles. Hog Farm Bacon 03:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, you are doing great work with these articles, and every one I look at is better than the last one. I think the main take-home message is that academic-standard works are better, but you can use sources like Tucker for routine material like unit movements, changes in CO etc. Just be careful when using them to attribute success on the battlefield, opposition casualties, etc particularly if they are the only source you have on some particular detail. There are often Union accounts of these battles that should be included in articles at A-Class and higher to ensure we are not just giving a Confederate view of the war or a unit's performance. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Brdo
Hi,

I was wondering if there's anything you can do about the latest obvious Vujkovica brdo IP address -- see the recent history of.

Thanks, JBL (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! —JBL (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Anytime! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Diff deletion
Hello PM. You deleted two diffs on the talk page of Cetinje massacre, apparently due to a BLP violation. However, the concerning material is still visible as you did not delete that diff too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, missed a step. Fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 16:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for today's John Leak, a South Australian winner of the Victoria Cross. "Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Creeping slowly towards 50 TFAs! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton McWhorter III
Thanks for expressing your concern. I've addressed it. Are you doing a full review? <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G’day, no prob. No I won’t be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Cheers.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
This felt like a worthwhile discussion that was moving away from the specific article at hand, so I thought I'd continue it here; I hope you don't mind. For the record, I'm pursuing it because I think it's a genuinely gray area that the community at FAC and elsewhere needs to get a better handle on, and not because I'm terribly upset over it or believe that ACR should be archived. If you've said what you had to say, just let me know. For the scenarios you outlined, I think we're broadly in agreement; subjects covered in detail need to have all the available information (at least, all that can be contained in an article of reasonable size). Subjects that aren't notable, obviously, ought not to have articles. But there's a large chunk of articles, that I am particularly aware of because I work on history in the global south, that are obviously notable (at least according to currently held notability standards) but don't have much coverage at all. As an extreme example, take Luis Arturo González López. He was President of Guatemala, albeit briefly; I don't know that we can argue he wasn't notable. But I'm quite certain I've reached the limits of what reliable internet-searchable sources have to offer. I would not submit this at GAN, even, let alone ACR. In general, subjects rendered notable by WP:GEOLAND, WP:NPOL, and WP:PROF (among others) but not by GNG will always have this problem; and González López would meet GNG as currently interpreted. How does one judge comprehensiveness for these articles? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My point about notability and tertiary sources applies to Luis Arturo González López too. Pick-outs like WP:POLITICIAN might say he is presumptively notable as president of a country, but he still needs to clearly meet GNG as well and the use of Encarta for the details of his personal life gives me the impression that with the current sources we would be better off with a beefed-up entry on President of Guatemala (the format of which might need changing to accommodate it). Of course, there may well be significant coverage in local printed sources, which would help him clearly meet GNG. My view may be a marginal one on notability, but over the years I have drifted in this direction. In my first few years of editing, I would have nominated Vojislav Lukačević for FAC (he passed ACR in 2013), but have since decided against it due to the lack of coverage of his personal life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, we can agree to disagree on notability, I suppose; though it's worth mentioning that I'm some distance from the inclusionist end of the spectrum myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Commissioner Government scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Commissioner Government has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 29 August 2020. Please check that 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/August 29, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fix it Hamilton McWhorter III
You criticize and don't bother fixing what you say needs fixing. While I appreciate your research and work, it would be better if you did what you say needs to be done. Your extended critique of the claims at the DYK was no model of clarity. I was not "playing fast and loose" with anything. I tried to interpret and apply the word salad you and User: Kges1901 composed. WP:AGF ought to stifle your need to remonstrate. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about YOU fix it, instead of using citations to sources that fail verification. Do you even check the sources you are using? You have repeatedly done it, and that is problematic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We are all volunteers here. You come up with insights or criticisms, put all this verbiage out at the DYK, and choose not to fix the article.  Do what you want; your choice.  I was trying to fix the problem (I edited the article, and then you added your snarky accusation in the edit summary), respond to what I thought the two of you had come up with.  I was not trying to fix the blame.  Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)