User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 23

Dara of Jasenovac


As can be for example seen here among all other edits here, me edits are removed with accusations of pov pushing and twisting wording when I followed the source. The person even literally deleted and copied what I wrote again. Subtly leaving out the fact that Yoemans said that the anti-Catholic angle he could see. Could you step in to deal with the constant edit waring and accusations? It’s getting to be too much. Being accused of WP:TE and WP:POVPUSH by those projecting, ironicly doing so ignoring what the source says due to inconvenience is unacceptable and frustrating as an editor dealing with sensitive nationalist charged subjects as you know. You being involved I know you would rather not deal with this. One of the edit warriors was found to be a sock. This has to stop. Are there admins (uninvolved) I can contact about this? Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly cannot use my admin tools on that page, as I have edited it and reverted the edits of others myself. I will think about the best course of action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am flat out in RL right now, and am barely looking at WP for more than half an hour a day, and I spend most of that swatting vandals on Balkans articles. A couple of admins who are familiar with the Balkans editing environment and have been willing to impose discretionary sanctions in the past are and . Perhaps one of them could take a look at what is going on at Dara of Jasenovac, as it seems rather battlegroundy. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've warned that editor, and put a DS note on the talk page. But, you can't really complain about others if you yourself are, how shall I put this, write things that are unbalanced, like in this edit. The review was for the most part positive, but your edit makes the article have twice as much "negative" as "positive" material, and that's not right. Plus, the grammar is challenged; the reviewer doesn't "cite" the reenactments. You need to either trim that down considerably, or trim it down some and up the praise a bit. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Putting me on the same level as the other is not realistic. Peacemaker literalybsaid he had to revert number of editors on that page, none of them me. The two sentences you mention (which are from Yoemans article not my summary or my words) were removed, i was accused of WP TE and POVPUSH and them the same user reintegrates what I wrote. So clearly they agreed but wanted to name call and delete the anti-Catholic part. See here and here. The two sentences I added were Yoemans’ context for his assessment. His own words (which I should have put quotations around to avoid plagiarism, my mistake. Not me adding more negative aspects or making it seem like he was agreeing and portray his article as mostly negative. You got that part wrong. So it seems more an issue with the Catholicism aspect not the two sentnecs about Yoemans describing general reviews being negative based on the edit logs. Fair enough if you feel my edits were too negative centric. I have nonisse with extra positive points from his article added. But felt the original addition was not faithful to his full expression. He said more negative things than just “cartoonish guards”. I wanted an admin for neutrality and that includes keeping me inline as well. Everyone. But I was stating what the source said. Not that the source agrees with the sentences but is tackling them. Perhaps my wording was bad in terms of context but not my intentions. However another positive review was added to the section so I doubt the whole section is biased towards the negative at my hands. The critics decided that. If there are more negative than positive views, what should we do? And it is ever growing as more see the film and write their views. My edit in question is taken from his words directly. His praise of the acting and covering a chapter of WWII is in tact I didn’t remove it. It is the positives and negatives in that diff..... How is that unbalanced? It’s his words. We should have the positive and the negative even if he is more positive than negative in net.


 * I didn’t think it was unbalance as Yoemans summarizes the bad reviews by American and British critics which is not an existing statemnet and that he himself said that anti Catholic bias could be argued. He states that reviews in general drum up anti Croat/Catholic claims. Neither sentence summary existed before on the wiki article. As you can see on the talk page it is downplayed to “1 or 2 reviews” so I deemed this was an important aspectz I don’t see how my two sentence additions makes the article twice as negative. I didn’t write that he agreed with such criticisms but opposed them sans Catholic concerns. However as you can see in the edit logs unsavory content was removed (such as him saying anti Catholic themes can be argued to an extent, which he gives examples for) and mostly the positive aspect of that paragraph in his article was included and the negative removed except for “cartoonish performance” which is the least of the negatives he lists. Surely you can agree that removing Yoemans acknowledging that anti-Catholic criticism can be argued, is not right for the sake of making the article less negative. And I hope you understand my edit here and my thought process. He goes into a long discussion about it in his review. Two editors tried to remove this. I’m not sure which one you warned. Thanks and I hope you can look further into this. If you still feel I crossed the line or was pov pushing I accept your criticism as you are a neutral party. But my aim was not pov pushing or to be WP:TE as another said I was. I will make sure that my edits are more balanced and introspective so as not to appear onesided. Not my attention and I apologize for that. Cheers and thanks OyMosby (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I follow all your points, but for me the matter is quite simple, and it is not related to what other parties have said about you or vice versa. The article that was cited was maybe 80% positive, but you cited about twice as many words that were negative than were positive. That's undue, but I indicated a way in which you can fix that. If you don't, someone else might--and you are likely to get accused of non-neutral editing. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One is free to add more “positive” content from the source. I see no complains about hyper focus on positive content from reviews making negative statements. I find this to be a strange observation and obession on Yoemans article that isn’t being evaluated in whole. Team effort. So therefor when Yoemans mentions in his review that anti-Catholic elements could be argued is not to be added in this article? Nor “ “dramatic work of fiction based on actual events, the exaggerated tone detracts from the overall message”, citing “the inflated reenactments”.Which he says himself. He has a number of criticisms in his article. Why can’t they be in the section? Censorship for the sake of making the movie look nicer? Whatever one feels about Jasenovac, the movie article is to be treated clinically not emotionally. A good amount of his article talks about this. He discussed it for a 1/3 of his review. Also the American/British Reviews he acknowledged claiming anti-Croat/Catholic themes is what he discusses and was described by him and gives context to why he is bring up the topic of “anti-Croat” to begin with. That’s why I added it. That isn’t negative criticism from him but what he said he was arguing against. So I think there is a misunderstanding here. How do you feel about the current verion? I’m confused because the two sentences I had in there were removed yesterday. So again not sure what else should be removed from the section? Dermies, I respect your final say regardless. Just want to better understand for future edits I make. Perhaps you mean the negative aspects of his review I added were indeed fine just that I should also add even more positive aspects of his review? If that is the case looking back I agree with you 100%! and  perhaps you could clarify? I’ll change whatever you all seem fit. Just don’t know what it specifically is. OyMosby (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added pagelinks and userlinks to the head of this complaint. I'm also letting know that they're being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While I haven’t filed a report I was hoping that both of you can monitor the page in general. I’m not excluded from the belligerents as I have participated in edit warring and straying into the negative admittedly. But I feel my complaints and logic still stand. I respect yours and ’s ultimate decisions. Peacemaker was involved already expressing converns of then article, so was asking him for other admins experienced in the field. My biggest issue is the constant accusations by other editors there instead of them integrating the quotes if it was a problem of context instead of wiping them out. Cheers and thanks both of you. OyMosby (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really going to monitor it, I think, though after reading the article on the camp I don't mind looking at it every now and then. I'd read that business about those knives before--it's terrifying. I haven't looked at the totality of all the reviews, though it's obvious that some get a lot of space--whether that's justified I don't know. You noticed I made a few minor copyedits, but I suppose it's fine. Hey, neither User:EdJohnston or I are going to be arbiters of content, right--we're here to make the editing process work. I'm pretty sure Ed doesn't pick sides either. You mentioned one or two other editors earlier; I had already looked at one of them, Griboski, but saw nothing that stuck out to me. Take care, and Peacemaker, good luck with your RL business, Drmies (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * However I meant keeping an eye on movie article not the WWII articles in general. Though you will see on amny of these Balkn WWII articles inflation or downplaying of crimes and events. Just keep watching... The wrist knives? Yeah its gruesome. The slitting of throught and having a procedure like that for executions. Even making a contest out of it according to some witness accounts. Somewhat Similar to the Koljaci Chetniks who would cut out the hearts or innards of live victims. I can’t believe (hyperbolicly speaking) that this all happened. Though I don’t know what that has to do with the issue I brought up about the movie article......


 * Also let me again be clear I never said any of you pick sides hence why I said I trust and value your input. I mentioned there are two other editors who I will not name names. But the edit warring and removal of sourced content is there in the edit history. One would have to look over the past few days to get a good look at it. It’s time consuming. Don’t worry, the individuals I was referring to have been warned in the oast and will likely repeat so you’ll get a chance to see first hand. ;). Cheers all and thank you. OyMosby (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks and  for taking the time to have a look. I really appreciate a couple of fresh eyes at least scanning the editing behaviour there, the article appears pretty contested to me, with lots of scope for POV pushing. Regards, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel I made good contributions in this thread as well. I don’t feel I got or understood my edits being the problem compared to the rest on the logs. You never reverted me but others. This thread seems more like a dud really. Whatever. Like yourself PM, RL is pulling me out. For the best I think. My blood pressure needs it, haha ;) Hope you are recovering alright from your surgery and staying safe from this wretched virus. Remember, Vitamin D3. Take it daily. Every doctor I speak to states it makes a difference in Covid cases. CheersOyMosby (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Military infobox result
Could you direct me to where it states what can and can not be listed for the result in an infobox? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to help. Template:Infobox military conflict is the place. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So according to;


 * "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail..."
 * The result should be X victory not X defeat? So in the case of Russo-Turkish War (1568–1570) and the source states, "The Ottoman empire, though militarily defeated...", the result should state Russian victory.
 * What about Battle of Mu'tah where the result has been changed from "Byzantine victory"(with 2 sources) to "Leaders killed"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can you address this Vandalism as this person is continuing anti-Croat edits across-multiple pages? You can see disruptive behavior in their edit history. It may be a sock. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another example here with personal insults as accusing me of “disgusting anti Serb edits”. OyMosby (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, only just saw this, I actually just blocked them for 24 hours for edit-warring on a different article, but will keep an eye on the other editing behaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WW2 in Yugoslavia
Hello Peacemaker, I have noticed that you have created many great articles concerning WW2 in Yugoslavia and that you plan on creating many more. I have recently gained large interest on the same topic and began writing about it on Wikipedia. One thing I want to ask you is if you have began work on some articles in your work in progress page cause I'd love to help you. Articles I have in mind are List of Yugoslav Partisan divisions, List of Yugoslav Partisan corps, and List of Yugoslav Partisan brigades, as I have also recenetly tought about creating them. I am a native Serbo-Croatian speaker so I believe I could be of large help as many sources are in my native language. Also, I want to let you know that whenever you're creating/expanding a Yugoslavia-related article if you need any help with a Serbo-Croatian source, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Looking forward to working with you. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be great. Always interested in collaborating with other editors on articles of mutual interest. You no doubt know that there are good quality books in Serbo-Croatian on most Partisan divisions. I have created a few stubs on ones that are mentioned in other articles I have developed, but haven't put much time into any of them beyond that. The list of Partisan divisions would be a great start, you could also create stubs for them as you go, using 27th Division (Yugoslav Partisans) as a model. There is a general consensus that the divisional articles are titled " Division (Yugoslav Partisans)" for brevity, and we leave the "Shock" and regional affiliations to the body of the article. Let me know if you create any lists or articles in the Yugoslavia in WWII are, as I would like to watchlist them. I try to ensure my watchlist includes all lists and articles in the topic area. If you have a look at Operation Bora which is where I and other interested editors keep track of progress. Looking forward to working with you. Regards, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so fast. Tomorrow I'll start working on the List of Partisan divisions and I'll make stubs as I go. I willlater expand those stubs and work on smaller Partisan military units. Also, I have created two articles in Yugoslavia in WW2, those being Bihać Operation and Delko Bogdanić. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I finished working on the List of Yugoslav Partisan but I still haven't created stub articles for most divisions, so should I move it to the mainspace now or when I finish making the stub articles? Thanks. OakMapping (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. Just note that vojska.net is not a reliable source, it is essentially a wargaming site. The other sources look fine. It might be worth waiting until you have created stubs. Just make sure you have checked for possible existing articles for the divisions, as someone may have created them with different names. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will remove vojska.net references and try to find replacements for them. I'll let you know when I finish making stubs and move the article to the mainspace. Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TJMSmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

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

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Page mover/delete-redirect.
 * A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
 * There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news
 * When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
 * When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
 * There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (T275322).

Arbitration
 * By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
 * The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Charles Green (Australian soldier)

 * Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing articles under your supervision
Hi, a few months ago a ban that was imposed on me on certain topics expired. I would now like to contribute to these topics once again. The topic in questions are the one where you serve as one of the moderators. For example, if I would like to contribute to the article on the Jasenovac camp, what exactly is the procedure? Can I edit the article directly or do I first have to go to the Talk page? I am asking this because I have noticed that the practice for articles like these is somewhat different and since I was not here for a while, some things may have changed and I wouldn't like to fail again. Nbanic (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day Nbanic, welcome back. I certainly don't "moderate" articles, but I do watch a large number related to WWII in Yugoslavia, and if I am not involved in a current dispute, I sometimes use the admin tools to deal with poor editing behaviour. Given your TBAN, if I were you I would not dive back into an article that is highly controversial and contested, particularly with the recent release of Dara of Jasenovac. If you insist on doing that, I strongly recommend you do so slowly, starting by suggesting an edit on the talk page, noting what reliable source(s) you would be using to support the edit. In no-one objects, or if consensus among editors commenting on the thread supports the edit, then go ahead and make the edit and see if anyone else reverts it. If they do, do not engage in edit-warring, go back the talk page and try to confirm the consensus. Aggressive editing and edit-warring in this space after a lengthy TBAN are likely to get you permanently TBANed from the area rather quickly, so I suggest starting with less controversial articles. Good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Lionel Matthews TFA 2 March
Hi PM, just looking at the blurb and wondering ... Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Malayan Campaign - lower case campaign?
 * surrender of Singapore - Fall of Singapore is a better link?
 * After the war he was awarded the George Cross - posthumously (or too obvious)?
 * Thanks Jenny, I'll make some tweaks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the last point, it is stated at the top that it was posthumous. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks PM. JennyOz (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for the araticle, introduced: "Matthews was decorated during the WWII Malayan campaign, and was captured at Singapore. He then established an intelligence network within the Sandakan POW camp, which facilitated escapes among other things. He was eventually betrayed, tortured and finally executed, after he refused to give up any information about his network. He was posthumously awarded the George Cross for his gallant and distinguished service."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

An aside RE the low-quality rivers map in Battle of Little Blue River
Yes, that map would need replaced before a FA happened. But I just ran into a campaign map that makes that one look like a featured picture. I was on the Red River Campaign article, and I'm pretty sure it's lead image (File:Red River Campaign map.jpg) was produced in Microsoft Paint by photoshopping a map of Louisiana. Looks like I need to teach myself graphical mapmaking at some point. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I often wish I had the skills for map making. Fortunately the Yugoslavs published a historical war maps book in the 50s which is now PD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Jovan Rašković
Please explain to me wp:undue issue in this article. I have two sources which say that mother of Jovan Rašković is Croat and father was judge in NDH. Can I do something to prevent wp:undue issue? Or for some reason such information should not be included in the article, maybe this information is not important or more sources for confirmation is needed? I don't understand entirely that rule, so explain to me in more detail if you have time(on this example), thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sock edits
The latest sock of JohnGotten was blocked today. As with every return of the sock, there has to be some cleanup afterwards. And every time that the sock gets blocked, particular editors try to keep the sock edits around even when they're not supported by bibliography and consensus. At Časlav of Serbia, a specific map was removed three months ago and there was a talkpage discussion about it at Talk:Časlav of Serbia. As the sock returned, they readded it. removed all sock edits today after they were blocked, but particular accounts began edit-warring to have the sock's edit about the map reinstated with no consensus. This of course is something that has happened with every JohnGotten sock and is happening at other articles affected by the latest sock. Oversight is needed by an experienced administrator in the Balkan topic area. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree it is out of control, and there is clearly a lot of meatpuppetry and socking going on. Unfortunately, my RL stuff is severely reducing my presence here at the moment, and I don't expect it to ease up for a couple of months. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem with my eyes
Hi, I seem to have a problem with my eyes. I thought Template:Infobox military conflict said "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." but according to your edit it clearly says something else entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I should have said that don't agree with the current wording of the template docs. What it should say is "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" unless this is clearly supported by the majority of reliable sources". No template doc should ever be so restrictive that it deprecates what the reliable sources say. Operation Storm is about the clearest example of a decisive victory in the entire war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So raise it on the template talk page and get consensus there. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will, but template docs are hardly written in stone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Advice on article size
Hello peacemaker67 - I'm working on an article about the Third Battle of Winchester, and plan to get it up to GA. I have a draft in my User:TwoScars/sandbox that is 97,363 bytes long. This battle was very important in the American Civil War—and it is complicated by fighting on multiple fronts. I'm still working on it. My question: Is it too long? I could shorten it by getting rid of some of detail about brigades, especially for the infantry. What size is the ideal size for a battle like this? I also put the various times in bold, mostly to help me out when organizing. Should the times be unbolded? I could also eliminate some images such as Maj Gen Gordon, Ricketts advances, Col Edwards, and Br Gen Upton. Any advice? TwoScars (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it! WP:SIZERULE is not about the total number of bytes in the article, but specifically the length of readable prose. Using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, I have determined that the article only has 51 kB of readable prose, or 8202 words, which is a reasonable length for an article. However, I would recommend not bolding the times and the unit names, I don't believe this is allowed MOS:BOLD. For images, the main question is, "Does this image help the reader understand the subject better?" (In many cases, what a historical figure looks like is completely irrelevant to the event, and does not benefit reader understanding.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the stalk, Buidhe! I agree, it is fine at this size, but I wouldn't go much larger. As far as images are concerned, I may differ from Buidhe. I consider that for many older battle articles, images of the key commanders and key equipment used are often a good addition, however, detailed maps of the phases of a battle are a higher priority. It is always difficult and word-consuming to describe the intricacies of manoeuvre which can be easily portrayed in a series of maps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the useful advice. I will stop worrying about the size, but keep it under 100K. If necessary, I can chop 5 to 10 k by dropping much of the brigade detail for the infantry. Working on cleanup, proofing, etc. now. TwoScars (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

TBAN
Hello, I hope you’re doing well. I have one question regarding the ban on Balkans topic area. May I edit articles for the 2020 Summer Olympics, Eurovision Song Contest 2021, 93rd Academy Awards, 2021 ATP Tour etc? Especially, am I allowed to update the results and other data on participants from the Balkans? Does that apply to Novak Djokovic career statistics and other non-political Balkan individuals (sports, culture, science)? Of course, I understand that I should not get involved in disputes about ethnic origin, controversial parts, etc. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to add. Sorry for the delay in responding.  I strongly suggest that while you are TBANed, you closely examine your editing history and your actions, and read a range of academic quality books published outside Serbia that examine the history of the region, like Ramet, Tomasevich, Pavlowich, Milazzo and Hoare.  - Thank you so much for the advice. I have mostly read almost all of them, I am quite familiar with Balkan topics from sources around the world.
 * The Balkans has always been a very fraught area of Wikipedia, and the recent increase in disruption and POV-pushing from various sides has been allowed to go on for too long. I partly blame myself for letting many things slide while I have been focussed on content creation and the Milhist project. - You have my support. I hope that you will be persistent in this and that all parties will be treated impartially and equally, in order to correct the current heated atmosphere on Balkan issues. I'm fully aware that sometimes I have contributed to such an atmosphere because of my emotional approach. I wish you a lot of luck and success in your work!--WEBDuB (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WRT your first point, it is highly unlikely given the ban is to be "broadly construed", but the place to ask that question is, in the first instance, the talk page of the uninvolved admin that banned you. Clearly I am involved, and will not be making any calls regarding your ban or its interpretation. I am glad that you have done some reading, that will hopefully mean that if you are able to get your ban lifted in future, you might edit more neutrally. And finally, thank you. My enjoyment of Wikipedia has been significant reduced over the last year as a result of all of the disruption, battlegrounding and edit-warring that has been going on, but it must be dealt with for the good of the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 12:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability q
Hi PM, hope all is well. Any thoughts on the notability of Axis occupation of Vojvodina? It's been tagged for a while, out of my area of expertise. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day Eddie, yes, all is OK, I'm just a bit tired of the neverending argy bargy in the Balkans subject area, and RW stuff is dominating my time and will continue to do so until late April at this stage. This is what a preliminary discussion of a couple of us came up with some years ago. The issue is that Vojvodina wasn't a defined geopolitical entity during the occupation, it was partly annexed by Hungary, partly an ethnic German-led semi-autonomous part of the German-occupied territory of Serbia (the Banat), and partly annexed by the Independent State of Croatia. Frankly, I consider it ahistorical (on the basis that articles should be defined in scope by the geopolitical entities in place at the time, not by modern-day entities), and anything unique in the existing article should be merged into the three articles mentioned. The editing environment in the Balkans area has been so full of POV-pushers and battlegrounding that I just haven't bothered pursuing it, because there are a group of editors who would just oppose it as an act of pure bloodymindedness. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had kinda feared that was the case-- the Balkans have always been too much for me, though I greatly admire your work there and elsewhere. I'll leave it for another day then. Stay well, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 17, 2021. 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 17, 2021, 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 - talk to me?  14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TFARs for May
Hi Peacemaker. I will setting the TFAs for May. I see that you have three Yugoslav MilHist FAs in Requests/pending, which is pushing it. Two military conflicts in Bosnia in three days is not going to happen, so it would be helpful if you could pick just one of them to go to the TFA/requests: Operation Rösselsprung (1944) or Battle of Vrbanja Bridge. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the same problem with April every year because of the 1941 invasion. I've moved the 1995 one to 2022 for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of RfC discussion at the Flag of Albania page
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Flag of Albania regarding an issue with which you may be interested in and since I've known you to be fair even where we were on opposing sides --Havsjö (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is really outside my area of interest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Willing to help
If you find that you could use some help in collecting info about articles that may require protection from IP disruption, ping me, I am available for the task.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to suggest any here, ! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what you are talking about, as I am on a wikibreak now and am not following things going on. But Kosovo Liberation Army is probably the Balkan article with the longest history of continous IP disruption. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ktrimi991 (I moved your page-link into the box below), that's exactly what is needed, compiling a list of articles which attract most IP's disruptions. Recent upsurge in IP edits could mean that any contentious topic or particular subject, under the Balkan scope, could be targeted, now or in the near future.
 * One of the favorite playgrounds for such disruptions are also a medieval history topics related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo (to some extent Albania and Macedonia). In my experience, Bosnia and Montenegro are always contentious, and constantly targeted by "patriotic" editors, who want to re-write history as they wish it played out or perceive it in accordance with their emotional attachments and loyalties. Warning: if you find scroll-box useful for amassing links here, please bear in mind not to (re)use template for any purpose in main article space!

-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Santasa99, I'm not familiar with this topic area, but I will work my way through your list, and given I am not involved there, I will apply long-term semi as needed on the basis it has been implemented as a consequence of the Sadko AE case. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome PM. For clarifications, if needed, just ping. Also, if I come across or remember other pages in this topic area, and, of course, if you don't mind, I will post them in the box or somewhere, somehow. Cheers.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. I politely ask you to not ping me on this tp again. I have the impression that I am not welcome here. If you ever need some help or advice, you are welcome to contact me on my tp or elsewhere, and I will be very happy to do my best. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if I haven't told you you are not welcome to post on my talk page, then you are welcome to do so. I do that only very rarely, and only in response to constant egregious misbehaviour. I don't recall ever telling you that, so feel free. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I created that impression as you did not react to the three last messages I sent to you (the two others some time ago). I always respect it if someone does not want to interact with me: after all nobody is somehow obliged to respond to me unless I am involved in a dispute with them. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been very busy in the RW recently. I certainly will look at the KLA article and consider long-term semi. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. The most important thing is the health and well-being of you and your family. Wikipedia is for free time only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to say thanks to both of you, we really need to sort these IP problems, before we all start experiencing what I experienced yesterday and day before, something I have never encountered before - this, posted allover on Talk:Duchy of St Sava.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately IP disruption is a problem that will never cease to exist. With proper measures it can be reduced, but never eradicated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
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, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisan division names
Hello, I am still working on the stubs for the Yugoslav Partisan divisions but I have one question that's been troubling me. Should the names of territories in the division name be in demonym? (For example, should it be 33rd Croatian or 33rd Croatia Division) Pages you created do not have demonym so I haven't either but names in Serbo-Croatian contain demonym. So, I just want to make sure that the names shouldn't use demonym. Thanks, OakMapping (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think that isn't helpful. It was largely done for a propaganda purpose, and that is how it would play out here, believe me. Let's just stick to the ordinal and any eventual adjective like Shock or Proletarian, but avoid the national/regional labels in the article titles. They can certainly be explained in the body and as an alternative name in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I wasn't really clear, I wasn't talking about article titles. I agree it's better for them to be just ordinal. I was asking about how it should be written in the body of the article. OakMapping (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead and explained in the body, but an effort should be made to explain that even though a division was referred to as "Croatian" or "Serbian", that doesn't mean every soldier in the formation was Croatian or Serbian. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I will do that once I start expanding the articles but I believe that's not necessary while articles are stubs. Also, I believe that will be needed only for divisions whose name contains "Serbian", "Croatian", "Slovenian", "Bosnian" or "Macedonian" and not once like 6th Lika Division or 13th Littoral Gora Division, right? I have two more questions with which I'd appreciate your help. 1. There are two 51st Divisions, so I believe that territory name should be included in the title. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. 2. I have seen Serbo-Croatian word udarna (word added to unit's name as an award) be translated as "Assault", "Shock", "Strike" and "Combat". I believe this should be consistent, but I really don't know which one is the most correct. Which one do you think should be used? Thanks, OakMapping (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day re the first bit, yes. Not sure about the two 51st Divisions, from memory, Vojvodina and Macedonia? I don't remember what was done about the potential confusion, was one disbanded or renumbered? What source are you using? Regarding udarna, the most common translation in this context is "shock". Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, I will change "assault" to "shock" in the stub articles I've created. Regarding the two 51st Divisions, yes they are Vojvodina and Maceodnia. Macedonia one was renamed to 50th Division after the first 50th Division was disbanded. I am using Vojna enciklopedija as a source. OakMapping (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

List of articles for protection.
Hi Peacemaker. Hope all is well. Not sure if you are still busy with RW events. Wanted to check with you to see if you already have a list of articles deemed worthy of protection as first discussed in the recent report in ANI where the topic of Balkan Article protections was initiated. Cheers! OyMosby (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, the articles on the list created during the Sadko AE report were all semi'd for a year. Is there IP disruption elsewhere that needs attention? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news
 * When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem.
 * Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers.

Arbitration
 * A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Church in Bosnia-Herzegovina during World War II
Hello there!

I noticed that you're very much familiar with the subject of World War II in Yugoslavia, and wanted to ask you what are good sources for the Catholic Church's role during the war, and especially on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and ex-Yugoslavia in general. I'd appreciate your help. Thank you in advance.

Or to be rather more specific, I want to improve the articles about bishops and the ones I'm working on currently are about Alojzije Mišić and Petar Čule. If you have any good sources on them in particular that would be good. Though any material related to the subject mentioned in the first paragraph is more than welcomed.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * G’day . There is a large chapter on the Catholic Church in the NDH in Jozo Tomasevich’s 2001 book which covers the topic quite well. Steer clear of Dedijer and the conspiracy theorists. The recent access to Vatican papers may offer some new information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I appreciate your help. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IP's on article Quo Vadis, Aida?
Hello, PM. Take a look at (unexplained, some IP's edits are at least borderline vandalism, etc.), I am guessing indef semi-protection is measure against persistent IP's disruption(?), but I will leave to you to decide what, if any, protection is warranted here. Thanks, stay safe.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m reluctant to semi it because at least one of the IPs is making useful edits. Let me know if it gets worse? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Roger that. (It could be expected during the Oscar week, and afterward, depending on what happens at the Academy.)-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Visoki Dečani
G'day peacemaker67, hope all is well. I see you are often times involved in Balkan related moderation, so I thought I would let you know some users and IPs are removing the Albanian name from this monastery in Kosovo. Idk how to link the history but you can see it in the lead too. Im not sure wether or not a semiprotection from ips is warranted or what, but I thought I better check with an exp admin before reverting. Have a good one! Alltan (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in DS Consultation
Hi Peacemaker67. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb, about "a Yugoslav destroyer with a very short career. Commissioned in August 1939, just prior to the outbreak of WWII, she was about to be captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia when two of her junior officers scuttled her instead, killing themselves in the explosion. A French film was made in 1967 about her demise and the deaths of the two officers. In 1973, on the thirtieth anniversary of the formation of the Yugoslav Navy, both men were posthumously awarded the Order of the People's Hero by wartime Partisan leader and President Josip Broz Tito."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

G’ Day Peacemaker
Any articles or tasks you need help with? Been on a bit of an in and out break. Looking for something different all together to work on. If there is anything that comes to mind just ping. ;) OyMosby (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day OyMosby, I hope you're well? I'll be back on deck next Monday, will have a look then and let you know. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks PM. Doing alright despite life’s downfalls. Been much less active as a result. Got my first vaccine dose though! We sepos are slowly relearning how to run a country. We’re pushing 245 years old. Though Oz is younger and have their shit together. What’s your secret? :/ How are things in the land down under? You still fairly busy in RL? Hope things with COVID are tame and you recovered alright from surgery. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Operation Rösselsprung (1944) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 25, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or for Featured Articles promoted recently from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:FDW777
Hi, as you are called "Peacemaker", and are an administrator, I would therefore appreciate some constructive input on my complaints about this editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#User:FDW777

Yes, I have been sanctioned for not following BLP policy, following FDW777 reporting me, but I've tried to remain civil, and acted in good faith; they haven't, and their misdemeanours are being wilfully ignored by User:ToBeFree.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with TBF and their approach to this. BLP policy violations are very serious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

But does that really discount the policy violations that FDW777 is committing? It’s amazing how admin are willing to turn a blind eye to this editor’s behaviour, because BLP violations apparently trump personal attacks and incivility. Not a very helpful response. TrottieTrue (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no point in trying to canvas other admins. Your problem is you don't come into this with clean hands. FDW777 was responding to your BLP violations, and while their responses weren't all great, they were essentially right about your BLP violations. All editors get frustrated when other editors are not following policy or POV pushing. I suggest you drop it and avoid trying to boomerang back onto editors who call out your policy violations. When you have a clean sheet, admins are more likely to take your reports more seriously. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, there isn’t any point, as the nasty behaviour this editor continues to exhibit goes ignored. I think that “you did bad first” is a very poor excuse for disregarding subsequent policy violations by another editor. I don’t think having a “clean sheet” should be a requirement for complaints to be taken seriously. I also don’t think your tone is very helpful. I haven’t been impressed by any of the admins dealing with this issue. Of course, the argument is “but you’re in the wrong and should move on, just drop it”, but I’m entitled to think I haven’t been treated fairly - that isn’t unjustified simply because three admins have taken a similar approach to the problem. It makes Wikipedia seem like a clique. TrottieTrue (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you considered that your own behaviour is the primary cause of your situation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that my behaviour doesn’t excuse other editors’ policy violations? I think editors have a duty to stick to WP:CIVIL, and other behavioural guidelines, regardless of who “did bad” first. And in any case, the most recent incidents do not directly follow on from the ArbEnf case. It was dealt with, yet the editor in question has continued their negative behaviour against me. It’s not very consensual.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that multiple editors have cautioned you on this User:TrottieTrue, it might be worth considering that your harassment of this editor, and even other editors that undo that harassment, is the major problem, rather than "everyone else". Cambial foliage❧ 13:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, it’s me that’s guilty of "harassment". No wonder people can end up thinking Wikipedia is run by a "cabal", when my genuine concerns about another editor’s policy violations are ignored by all and sundry. It has not been dealt with in a fair and even-handed manner. No-one has stopped to take seriously the policy violations being committed by the other editor; instead, I am continually being "punished". Incivility should not be turned a blind eye to simply because the other editor may have been at fault on a previous occasion. I note that my reasonable reply to your talk page comment was removed with a simple "no", which is an easy way to dismiss an argument.—TrottieTrue (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is now at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

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

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
 * The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed to  . This is for technical reasons. You can comment at  if you have objections.

Arbitration
 * The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Special projects
Hey, I was just wondering, how could I add special projects to a wikiproject template in order to have the quality assessment done on them? Noah Talk 01:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you link to the special projects so I can have a look? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, how was WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan coded into the project template? Noah Talk 00:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything to do with coding of Milhist templates is best referred to one of our founders and coordinator emeriti . Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

help?
I came here back in April but you were away, so I just continued with other parts of the project I've been working on since January. At any rate, this comment makes me very reluctant to add anything to the article. Would you be willing to review the section I've prepared for Australia and make any corrections you think might be necessary? My plan is to replace the part in the lede where is says citation needed and insert the rest of it in the history section of the main article. There isn't really a time crunch. I promised (he told me I have to ping him if I mention him) that I would finally work on this topic and I've only finished 38 of 195 articles that have to be written/reviewed just to uncover the legal part, so I can finally write the what women did to fix it article. Anyway, if you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine. I just know that you were very helpful when we worked together in the past and I need someone who can write Aussie. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , 38!! Ye gods woman! Do you never stop? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. I told you it was a huge project and would take at least a year. I didn't want to start it because I knew I wouldn't be able to stop once I began. But there you were, saying do it. So, here I am. The story needs to be told. It's amazingly difficult history to uncover, almost as if it was buried on purpose. But, out of the 38 I've finished, not one country did not denaturalize women upon marriage. SusunW (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, you are very kind. I would be glad to help out with ensuring the draft section is in Australian English (as best I can, we Australians are nothing if not inconsistent when it comes to our version of English...). Would it be ok if I looked at it over the weekend? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. That'd be lovely. I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Growing concern
I am seeing a troubling trend again of the same established editors supporting new additions by an IP vandalizing articles and calling anyone that disagrees an “Ustashe” even denying the puppet state or protectorate wasn’t so. I’m gobsmacked that is being supported by them with no criticism. That articles need to be protected. I guess that ANI had a short-lived impact. Such as here and here and here. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer to this is the measure adopted by the arbs in the Sadko AE case. Semi-protection in the first instance, for one year. I see that Deepfriedokra has protected the list (I would have gone longer, but three months will do), I have protected the Mostar article. If you see any more edit warring involving IPs on these articles, just let me know. I have taken the view that as I am working in this area and the arbs agreed with my contention about the need for this sort of long term protection, I am authorised to apply it. If I feel involved, I will ask one of the other admins who helped out with the initial list. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll let you know if any others come up. I would have thought the other admins involved in that report would be more active on Balkan articles though I know they are very busey. I wish there were more. This RfC is going on for eons also here on the talk page for List of military disasters and is just degrading more and more. Also the same issue but even worse with users insulting and attacking each other on the Talk page RfC for Maiševo. Also here. It seems like canvasing is happening as well from all sides. Do you know of neutral uninvolved admins I can talk to? OyMosby (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update
Dear Peacemaker67,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here. --Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Legion
Hello Peacemaker67, The 369th Reinforced Infantry Regiment was the unit commonly referred as the Croatian Legion but all three Infantry divisions that came after the 369th, 373rd, and 392nd were also Croatian legionnaire formations ie a Croatian Legion or a German-Croatian Legion. or Legion Division made of Croatian volunteers There was also a Croation Legion in the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia. why do you think they should not be included in the category Military units and formations of the Croatian Legion where we could find all of them at once? Aeengath (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day Aeengath. The Croatian Legion is the common name for the regiment, and it was a distinct unit, and a category that includes the divisions is not helpful or accurate as they were clearly and distinctly different in nature, and not part of some overall schema. The Croatian Legion was an all-Croat infantry regiment that formed a part of a German light infantry division, whereas the "legionnaire" divisions involved a strong cadre of Reich and ethnic Germans, making up nearly a third of the formation, with Germans commanding the division, both regiments, nearly every battalion, and making up most of the specialist troops. The three divisions were certainly called "legionnaire" units, but in writing the articles for the two latter divisions, I have never seen them referred to as being part of the Croatian Legion, and none of the sources you've used do so. While their formation was clearly presaged and a consequence of the relative success of the Croatian Legion on the Eastern Front and the interest of the Germans in capitalising on this, they were in no way part of the Croatian Legion. BTW, the formation that was sent to the Italians to placate them about the formation of the infantry regiment was the Light Transport Brigade (Independent State of Croatia) (however, that article has almost no reliable sources, and is currently pretty much worthless in accuracy terms). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Peacemaker67, since a corps of foreign volunteers is basically the definition of a “legion” I had assumed that those Croatian legionnaire divisions were Croatian legions but I see now that they were not part of the original formation known as Croatian Legion. Charles D. Pettibone calls them German-Croatian Legion divisions also in this German book maybe a better option to categorise them. Regarding The Light Transport Brigade it was definitely called Croatian Legion by the Italians, since they wanted their own version of the 369th RIR, and maybe also by the NDH since they may have had it on a commemorative stamp, but that’s another article for another time… have a good day!
 * Sure. BTW, Pettibone isn’t a RS. I got one of his books and they contain many errors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I did find a source The three Croatian Legion infantry divisions (369, 373, 392) fought in Croatia until May 1945 Aeengath (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy of that book, but Bloomsbury isn't exactly a top-notch source for something like this, and I just don't see the point of the categorisation, it seems pointy to me. I really think you are trying to shoe-horn unlike things together here. The units stand together as foreign volunteer units of the Wehrmacht, which is a sufficiently precise categorisation, without getting into disputed territory about whether they were all part of the "Croatian Legion". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Operation Rösselsprung (1944), "about an offensive that included the only Waffen-SS parachute operation of World War II, the mission of which was to kill or capture Josip Broz Tito, the leader of the Yugoslav Partisans. It was a coup de main operation, involved direct action by a parachute and glider-borne force landing at Tito's headquarters at Drvar in modern-day Bosnia and a planned linkup with ground forces converging on the town. The operation failed due to fierce Partisan resistance, the failure of German intelligence agencies to share limited intelligence on Tito's exact location, and lack of contingency planning by the junior officer commanding the airborne force."! -
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

FAM request
Hi! I hope you're well.

Would you consider taking up the role of the WP:FAM mentor to me? As you have likely noticed, I'm interested in editing articles on Yugoslav history and I thought I might tackle the Croatian Spring article to improve it sufficiently for a FAC nomination — hopefully in time for the 50th anniversary of the Karađorđevo meeting on 1 December. The article is currently awaiting a GOCE copyedit and I plan to submit it to GAN as a way to prepare better for FAC. As regards the FAM, I thought of asking you since I believe you are well aware of relevant article context and quite possibly familiar with most sources used – even if the article falls outside WW2 or even MILHIST scope. I hope to learn sufficiently in the process to be able to move articles through MILHIST ACR and FAC processes independently.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd be happy to. Perhaps I could have a look immediately after the GOCE c/e, and before GAN in the first instance? Let me know if that works for you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be just fine. I could ping you once the GOCE copyedit is done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to let you know that the GOCE copyedit has been completed. In addition to the article history, you can see notes and questions (and my responses) on article talk page. Two issues were left for further consideration though: (1) the GOCE copyeditor pointed out that the background section might be too long and (2) that the foreign policy section seems less than central to the topic. I decided to act on those two issues after I get a 3rd opinion - hopefully from you. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , just pinging you in case this slipped under radar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll add the article to the GAN pipeline to move it along - but I expect there'll be plenty of time to comment before the review actually takes place.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should I go ahead and add a request at WP:TFAP now or wait until FAR?--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no point nominating an article for TFAP until it is an FA, IMHO. But I suppose there is no harm in it. It is certainly feasible to get it to FA by then. I am having a read now, will finish up over the weekend. Will do a light c/e when I re-read, and will then make recommendations. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds great - thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentor
Hi there @Peacemaker67, I was wondering if you are possibly available for mentorship? I personally specialist in Military History, and was looking for mentors and noticed you were in the same field. I know that you specialist in Yugoslavia and Austria, but of course any help is welcome Cheers. J-Man11 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day J-Man11. Sorry, I didn't get the impression you were able to modify your behaviour before, or listen to other experienced editors who were advising you against these sorts of "Fooian ORBAT at Year" lists, and if you are going to continue what you were doing before, I am just going to block you again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus was reached to deprecate Editor assistance.
 * Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration
 * After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Blackburn scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Arthur Blackburn article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 23, 2021. 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 23, 2021, 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 - talk to me?  15:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim
Battle of Blenheim, which you have contributed to, has been nominated for TFA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, thanks. Have supported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Coatrack info ?
Hi Peacemaker,

Looking at other anti-Blank kages, this page seems to be coat-racking just isolated events from news articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Serb_sentiment&action=history

Was I right in my removals? I am going by standards from other articles about anti-blank sentiment. I wish other admins would be stepping in to scan over these pages after the ANI months ago but nothing changed.

I don’t see many active editors and I feel a bit overwhelmed. You even more so I would bet.

Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It has always been a massive coatrack. These incidents should be summarised, not laid out in detail one by one. Just because they attracted media attention doesn't mean they should be given this amount of weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also am I really committing “Patent nonsense” here? Seems like a weird Wiki terminology or rule. Sources are cited and it is no secret these groups play a role in assisting the Germans. Am I overlooking something? I restored the edit as I don’t see the reason for removal. Appreciate your time. Thanks. OyMosby (talk)
 * In a word, no. The sources are reliable. Let me know if there is any reverting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust Yugoslavia Greece discussion.
Hi again Peacemaker67. Could you perhaps weigh in if you have the chance on the talks related to the Yugoslavia section of the Holocaust article? I had pinged you given you have experience in the topic. Perhaps you could give guidance on what parts seem extensive and could be trimmed and what parts make sense to keep as a user is concerned with the length. But I am confused as two different conflicting agreements are made. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have commented there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! OyMosby (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivo Herenčić
Hello, I noticed your edit description at the article I nominated for GAN (Ivo Herenčić). Could you recommend sources describing the actions of his unit? That would definitely need to be included. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't just that, that was what immediately jumped out at me. You need to look much more widely for sources on such a figure. Ustaše i Nezavisna Država Hrvatska 1941-1945 by Fikreta Jelić-Butić definitely needs to be examined, and there are several papers and journal articles by reliable Croatian academics who have examined his activities. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have removed GA nomination. I will expand it further using Jelić-Butić's book and search for more sources. Do you have any particular papers or journal articles that might help me in mind? OakMapping (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You should get a hold of Pokolj Hercegovačkih Srba ' 41 by Savo Skoko, which details what happened there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the suggestions, I got Skoko's book and expanded the article with it. I have requested Jelić-Butić's book at WP:RX. If you know of any other works giving more attention to Herenčić, please let me know. Again, thanks a lot, OakMapping (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have done some expansion since this convo so I was wondering if you could take a look to see if it's ready for GAN now. I would really appreciate any suggestions. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, will have a look soon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * pinging just in case you forgot about this. Sorry if I am annoying, OakMapping (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * G’day, yes, it is on my list, I will definitely do it before starting any new reviews. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done this, but won't review at GAN as I have done quite a bit editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks a lot for all the help with this article. Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 250t-class torpedo boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zara. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)
You can now nominate Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) for TFA if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Phillip Davey, introduced: "This article is the third on a South Australian Victoria Cross recipient I've brought to FAC, part of an ongoing slow-burn project to get them all to FA. Davey was first awarded the Military Medal for bravery after rescuing a wounded man, and a few months later he killed an eight-man German machine-gun crew, saving his platoon from annihilation, for which he was awarded the VC." - If you like, some flowers and music, more on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda! I hope you are well? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Saturday was a happy day, - see bottom of link. - How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty good, said a final goodbye to my Mum yesterday (she died a year ago, but covid...), but I'm doing alright. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jadran (training ship)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jadran (training ship) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Trialpears
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

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



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
 * An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news
 * IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration
 * The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jadran (training ship)
The article Jadran (training ship) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jadran (training ship) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Zmaj
I'm going to be out of town for the rest of the week. Please take a look at the Zmaj ACR and see what you think of Pendright's comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jadran (training ship)
The article Jadran (training ship) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jadran (training ship) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomobe03 -- Tomobe03 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 August, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page if one has been posted. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Pemon conflict GA nomination
Hi! I just wanted to pass by and mention that I haven't forgotten to reply to the current review of the article, many thanks! It's just that I'm expecting to have time to do it thoroughly; I hope I can do it by 10 June and look forward to do it before. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

your comments at MILHIST
I've seen several admins called out over very similar bad-optics situations before, and I imagine that some of them had a similar realization that you did, but the fact that you then went and declared it publicly puts you in an estimable group not only among admins and not only among editors, but among human beings. I'm really encouraged by it. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, transparency is very important to me, and it is easy to conflate my Milhist role with my admin one and I try to avoid it if at all possible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jadran (training ship)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI
You're mentioned at ANI concerning protection of TFA. I've blocked the OP as a sock, it should be pretty clear why.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully support your protection, btw, to the point that I have offered to take responsibility for it if anyone totally has their undies in a twist over you doing it rather than someone else (which I can't see they should). Hope you're coping OK with everything going on in SA at the moment. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you! We're ok thanks Daniel, hoping the lockdown will end after week. Far worse in NSW. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have been lucky so far to only have had a couple of short stints, news was looking good today so fingers crossed for Wednesday! Daniel (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Arthur Blackburn, introduced: "Arthur Blackburn was a soldier, lawyer, politician, and World War I Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour in battle that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time. As a private he, along with another soldier, made it farthest inland on the day of the Gallipoli landing, 25 April 1915. He went on to be commissioned and served on the Western Front. He was awarded the VC for gallantry during the Battle of Pozières, when, commanding 50 men, he led four separate sorties to drive the Germans from a strong point using hand grenades, capturing 370 yards (340 m) of trench. He became the first South Australian to receive the award. Discharged suffering from illness, he had a successful career as a part-time soldier, lawyer and coroner between the wars, and briefly as a politician. He commanded a machine gun battalion in World War II in the Syria-Lebanon campaign. His unit was captured by the Japanese on Java in early 1942 by which time he was a brigadier, and he spent the rest of the war in captivity in various places. After the war he served on the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! I hope you are well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for asking, details on my talk: personally yes, but there are others - how about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm well, we are in covid lockdown here in South Australia, but hopefully it will only be for a week in total. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Momčilo Đujić

 * Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg BusterD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94



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

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg ST47

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news
 * Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import.

Arbitration
 * Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous
 * You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced, controversial, w/o discussion


Hello, PM, I hope to find you in good health. I wanted to ask you if you have the time and if you don’t mind, would you check out this extreme pattern of reverts to, and I’ll mildly label it, controversial claims, inserted without sources and references (which would be impossible to find anyway), and without thinking about discussing or taking into account the fact that we have already touched on all these issues in the exchange on TPs with other editors (with Sadko for example). Inserted list items are burdened with extremely controversial claims, such as implying absolute ethno-national exclusivity for certain geopolitical subjects, modern and historical, in cases where such exclusivity is inappropriate if not outright impossible, while that insertion is based on personal opinion and sentiment. Another curiosity is that both editors, despite the lack of a number of edits to support it, their experience is quite sufficient to find themselves already in quite a few disputes, showing that they are both curiously well versed in en.wiki ways and colloquialisms (jargon). It is not insignificant that the article is almost unique in the way it is conceived and framed, opening the door to constant disputes over questionable editing. Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've AfD'ed the list, it is an unmitigated POV fork. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

BAOR reinforcements
This is bugging me beyond belief ... its a puzzle, and I need to solve it! As I mentioned on the review talk page, I had read one source that described infantry battalions being around 200 men understrength, but so far nothing explaining how 5,000 men would slot into the divisions on the late 70s (I can only assume the armor, artillery, and other supporting arms were so understrength that this figure makes sense). I have located a book by David French, which covers the BAOR up until 1971. He outlines that in 1958, a plan called "Roman Holiday" was draft. It assumed that about 53,000 reinforcements would be able to get to Germany in time for the Cold War going hot. The plan assumed around half of them would be used to bring up existing units to full strength, and the rest would "fill gaps in BAOR's peacetime order of battle by manning a range of administrative units". That page ends discussing that by 1971, the figures and timeline had changed but seems to otherwise imply the same deal. I have read sources dedicated to the late 70s that indicate that the reserve force at that time was No .something Field Force containing regular and TA battalions. So, at present, I kind of think this "Roman Holiday" (or whatever it was called after that) was still in effect. So, no actual battalions being attached to the existing divisions? Just No. X Field Force being sent over with admin units to bolster the BAOR, and TA and reservists being used to bring the existing units up to full strength. But, I am not sure! Any advice? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that there's a 1985 book by David Isby that goes into NATO armies in a good amount of detail that might be helpful if you haven't seen it already. I do remember seeing No. 1 Field Force in a couple of tactical games of that era.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s weird. Reinforcing combat units like that would result in terrible unit cohesion, especially if they were going straight into battle and hasn’t trained together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Armies of NATO's Central Front appears to be Isby's work. I tracked down a wiki-user who has access to it. They reviewed and stated that the BAOR's reinforcement situation is only described for the mid-80s and the time of writing.
 * The 1976 Second report from the Expenditure Committee: Cumulative effect of cuts by defence expenditure, which apparently is not available in full online, does seem to provide the answer: "BAOR ... and NATO Headquarters are brought up to war strength by the introduction of Regular units with specific reinforcement tasks, TAVR units which complement existing formations in BAOR and and individual reinforcements which make good shortfalls in both TAVR and regular units" (p. xiii), and "The two principal tasks of the Regular Army Reserve ... would be to make good shortfalls in the ... TAVR units ... and to reinforce on an individual basis units of BAOR which are below war establishment." (p. 147) The latter page states the average battalion strength was 650, with an establishment of 750. In a time of war, it would swell to 800 with "the deficiency being made good from the Regular Army Reserve". The report also commented that junior officers had no real idea of how many men to expect!
 * I presume that due to the 1st-4th Divisions, is why we have the 5th through 8th Field Forces. 5th Field Force was to be the BAOR's reserve and based in Germany. 6th Field Force would be made up of five battalions, and include paras, and be based in the UK. It would be the strategic reserve and also potentially deploy to Italy. The 7th Field Force, also based in the UK, would also be made up of five battalions and supplemented by additional supporting units. It was to be the primary reinforcement formation for BAOR. I have read elsewhere that the main reinforcement to BAOR was to be admin, medical, and logistical units rather than combat, but dont quote me on that. 8th Field Force would remain in the UK for defense. See the following Handsard for a quick rundown on these. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1976-05-06a.1508.1
 * Five to ten battalions is not a whole lot, but I have also read the idea was for the armies in Europe to buy enough time for American forces to be deployed from the US to Europe and save the day, assuming nukes hadn't started flying for the Reds hadn't reached the Rhine in seven days and carried on over to the French Atlantic coast.
 * Dodd, quoted for the figures in the article, doesn't provide much of an explanation. So, for article and potential future FAC purposes, would something akin to "In a time of war, the division was expected to be reinforced by reservists and territorial army personnel to bring it up to a strength of 14,000 men. This would accomplished by bringing the division's existing units up from their peacetime to war time establishments." Maybe throw in a note about the 7th Field Force being the primary formation coming to reinforce the BAOR as a whole?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the limited sources and detail, I think that should suffice. Well done in digging that up! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When you understand that SP artillery crews need three or four extra ammo handlers on Transition to war, and maybe 15% of each battalion, unit, is individual ex-regular reservists (Regular Reserve (United Kingdom) of about three categories), when it goes up to its full War Establishment, I don't think there's any problem with imagining that 5,000 pers might join per division. Generally it's the difference between whatever peacetime establishment and War Establishment of whatever exact name. Source was probably Isby & Kamps or Beevor 89/91. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that follow-up. The transition to war article reads like the screenplay for Threads (1984 film) (came out a few years before I was born, and I first watched it last year; disturbing!)!

TFA
Thank you today for Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier), introduced: "The twelfth and last instalment in my series of Featured Articles on South Australian Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients, Arthur Sullivan was a bank clerk who enlisted too late to serve in World War I. After the war ended he sought discharge from the Australian Army and joined the British North Russian Relief Force. He fought during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, where he saved the lives of four members of his unit who had fallen into a river, some of whom had been wounded, and did all of this under intense fire from Bolshevik troops. Awarded the Victoria Cross, he survived the intervention and returned to Australia where he continued his successful career in banking. His reticence to talk of his exploits meant that he became known as the "Shy VC". He died in a freak accident while in London for the coronation of King George VI as part of the Australian Coronation Contingent in 1937."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day Gerda, thanks so much! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

help with new account assessment
Hi there. Recently I encountered a new user account called Aquinasthomes1 and observed some troubling patterns that I posted about in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aquinasthomes1&oldid=1036805101#contentious_edits Today I saw more, described at Talk:Andrija Torkvat Brlić. Do you mind having a second look, as an admin with experience in this wonderful topic area? :D I don't want to WP:BITE an actual newbie, but I'm worried we're dealing with repeat business here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day Joy. Certainly seems dubious. Possibly a migration from one of the sh wikis. I don't know the era or subject well enough to know how widely divergent they are from the reliable sources, but will keep a close eye within my areas of focus, no doubt they will pop up. Cheers for the heads-up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I’m amazed no one caught this one for almost a week. Meanwhile when it was first added it was removed in a split second due to need of “consensus” by those that guard that page. I’m a cynic so I wonder if this new user could be a returning old user.OyMosby (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nom
Hi, PM. Feel free to go ahead and post the Drenovic article as a co-nom. I still have some tweaks to make, but its nothing major. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks AB! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Uroš Drenović
You nominated Uroš Drenović for FAC but did not include Featured article candidates/Uroš Drenović/archive1 on Featured article candidates. This may explain the lack of comments. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was a bit premature, have asked Ian for permission for a second co-nom. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nom statement
Hi, PM. I was just reading your nom summary and wanted to point out that Kragujevac massacre wasn't our only co-nom. We also did 21st SS and one of the river monitors (I think). Possibly others, but my memory is kind of hazy. Cheers, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh bugger, I forgot your previous name! Of course! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
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) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao

 * Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Milhist scope or not
Hi! I recently wrote an article on the Geneva Declaration (1918). The topic seemed so tangential to the ww1 to me that I did not think to include it in the Milhist scope. I was just looking at what is linked to the page to determine what else to link and saw that AlexNewArtBot gave it a triple-digit score on military topics - and led me to think that I might have been wrong on Milhist inclusion. I'm still quite unsure what to do, so I thought to ask you for opinion. Congrats on the successful Beli Orao FAC!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, I think it is within scope, as it includes a lot of the outcomes of the peace agreements that ended the war in that part of the world. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jake Wartenberg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Emperor • Viridian Bovary
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
 * A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
 * A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
 * A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news
 * The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello PM
Hey PM. Hope all is well. Please do let me know of any help I can contribute on any articles you have in mind. Be it proof reading, research, etc. Knowing you are very busy and being that I would like to contribute to making an article achieve good status I want to help however I can. Cheers and stay well. OyMosby (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Tito's note to Stalin
Hi,

Before hand, I must say how much I am impressed by your knowledge and the span of your contributions. You seem like a real expert on the Yugoslav history. By comparison, I'm only discovering Tito existence some months ago and I am not (yet) an active contributor to Wikipedia.

When I read Tito's note to Stalin I found it incredibly powerful and I wanted to learn more about it. In particular was it in some museum? When was it written? What is the full letter (there is an ellipse in the note displayed)?

The only source given is to a book named The Unknown Stalin. I was able to find a copy of it in the archive. At pages 70–71 (and not 61-62 but I suppose it depend on the edition) I was able to find the note. Though it is not a direct transcription of the note but an interpretation from an interview of the author (Roy Medvedev) with A.V. Snegov whom remember 3 out of 5 letters he said have briefly read more than 30 years prior. The is to my knowledge no other source of this note.

It doesn't look too much like a reliable source to me even thought it's from a renown historian who publish multiple studies and book. But the is another historian (Grover Furr) who also publish multiple studies and book and who give a lot more reason to believe those 3 notes are pure fiction to serve a narrative. He wrote an article dedicated to this issue. But this article is in Russian and was originally published on a website that I'm unaware of the reliability. Still, regardless of the author or the sources, I found the arguments he presents convincing enough to at least write a disclaimer accompanying the note in the Wikipedia article.

Thanks you for reading my trail of thought and research. If you could help me correcting myself, I would happily learn from my mistakes. I genuinely want to know more about this peculiar note and on how to truly improve Wikipedia. Uspec (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mention in Wired
In case you haven't come across it yet, I thought I'd draw your attention to it. Your username is mentioned in this article of the current edition of Wired.  Schwede 66  20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of it. I corresponded with the writer and they fact checked with me before putting it up. Old history. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Drava scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Yugoslav monitor Drava article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 21, 2021. 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/October 21, 2021, 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 - talk to me?  13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A belated thanks
I wanted to express my personal thanks for your kind words during my July RfA. That I am entrusted by editors I admire makes me stand up a bit straighter I think. My first few months have been interrupted by personal concerns but I'm here for the long haul. Sometimes I think I want my last ever talkpage edit to end "castle of arrrggghhh...." and then four tildes. You know how much respect I have for your efforts; please call on me if I can help or if you see me with my pants down. I'm sometimes blind to myself. That's why I keep friends close. Proud to call you one. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, BusterD! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SAGE Journal article
Hi Peacemaker67! I'm not sure why the email didn't go through, but I've uploaded it here temporarily. If you could download it as a local copy and let me know, then I'll delete it from my end. DanCherek (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Done. Not sure what is going on with the email. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj

 * Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

ACR advice
Black Terror (ship) - It appears to be about to pass GAN. My one concern is with the bit about Smith's dissenting hypothesis. Is the material worked in well enough to attempt ACR, or is this a subject where I'd be best waiting out further research? Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting. I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but you might want to fix "Not wanting Indianola to be repaired and enter Confederate service like Indianola" in the lead just for the GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day . Having had a look, I wonder if the article is actually giving too much weight to Smith's theory, and perhaps it should just be in a note. Check my summary here against your knowledge, but it seems to me that a lot of authors accept that Black Terror was the fake boat used to cause the destruction of Indianola. I haven't got access to them, but Barnhart and Hearn apparently accept that Porter decided to use a fake to bluff the Confederates, and it seems that Miller, Shea & Winschel, Legan, Barnhart and the NHHC roughly agree on her construction. The circumstances of Indianola's destruction seem consistent between sources other than Smith and are apparently corroborated by contemporary newspaper reports, and Smith appears to be the only one questioning whether Black Terror was the fake that caused it. Barnhart in particular seems authoritative and closely focussed on this incident, and Miller is highly respected. Have there been any reviews of Smith's book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My train of thought in giving that weight to Smith is that of the sources, only Smith and Chatelain specialize in the naval warfare aspect. The review I've found for Joseph Brown and His Civil War Ironclads states If it sailed on the brown water of America's Western rivers during the Civil War and flew the Stars and Stripes of the Union Navy, Myron Smith more than likely knows about it.  He's also published The Timberclads in the Civil War through McFarland, The CSS Arkansas through McFarland, as well as Tinclads in the Civil War and The Fight for the Yazoo, August 1862–July 1864 through McFarland as well.  For Black Terror, I pieced together the Smith material from the previews on Amazon and Google books, although I'd try to get ahold of a physical copy before sending it through FAC (which will be difficult; it's about 3x what I give myself for monthly book purchasing budget on Amazon and it looks like there's only two publicly-held copies in the entire state of Missouri.  The publisher is apparently part of the Wikipedia Library, but I've never been able to figure out how McFarland works on there). This is an 1863 newspaper referring to Black Terror as the second ironclad, but it also includes a length description of the Indianola affair, without saying what the first one was for. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely think you need a copy of Smith before progressing this any further. Not knowing what level of detail is provided in the various sources, I suggest trying to make it clearer which sources say what about this aspect when you are providing the sequence of events. ie if other sources state there were two fake ironclads, then perhaps some sort of intro sentence would be good before the chronology starts, like "Sources vary on whether there were two ironclads, and whether Black Terror was the first or second sent downstream, and its intended purpose. " Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this! I'll try to see if I can get it through interlibrary loan. Since Smith is the only secondary source I've seen that suggests there was two. I'm hoping Smith's bibliographic footnotes are clear - if it's a situation where that's Smith's own original research it's clearly a different situation than if Smith cites other researchers for that statement. Hog Farm Talk 17:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Uroš Drenović

 * Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks HF! Special thanks for running the election, one of the biggest jobs coords do, and you handled it brilliantly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about citations
I often review Military History B class articles and less frequently GA class articles. Lately, we have some new contributors who, I think, are not using citations correctly. I'm not sure if they are wrong or if I'm assuming there is a rule about citations that doesn't exist. To see what I'm talking about please see the GA review page for Talk:John Savage (soldier). If there is a better place for this discussion, please let me know. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments are correct. They could be more granular by using a page instead of a page range, but that seems unnecessary for this sort of info. Two exceptions to what you’ve said are quotes and material likely to be challenged (perhaps because it is controversial). They need a citation at the end even if it is a repeat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FOOTNOTES is the one to link to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)



Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mkdw

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

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
 * Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news
 * DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under.

Arbitration
 * A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
 * Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous
 * Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
 * The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project
'Bold text'Italic text== Careless reverts ==

I see you have reverted me in several articles now. Is it really like a n00b cannot make anything right? In Pavelić article you also reverted uncontroversial improvements in wording that didn't need any changes, rather, "Nazi Croatian Independent State" was inadequately sourced (not sourced at all), and I removed the unsourced part. The Ustaše were not generally considered as "Nazi". they were a brand of fascism. "Clerical fascism" in case of them is really easily sourcable - the relevant wikiarticle already has it!Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day . It isn't careless reverting, yours was careless editing. If you have added material when the material around it is already cited, and you haven't added a citation covering the additions, then you are essentially making it appear that the existing citation(s) include the material you have added. Such additions will fail verification, which is a core policy of WP. Don't do it. If it is easily sourceable, then you do it when you add the material. Also, don't combine fair edits like the removal of "Nazi" with edits like I have described. No-one is obligated to fix up your mess. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't insult fellow users' intelligence, OK? It was YOUR edits that were messy and all in all unconstructive. So why? You seem to have objected to this easily sourcable change, which I performed with ONE edit: . You REVERTED the rest of the THREE edits, too, which you now apparently admit were all uncontroversial. I think a bit more care would be called for in the future. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You do you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Schichau-class torpedo boat

 * Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Source?
Hi PM. Is this a reliable source for such additions on a topic sensitive article? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't independent of the subject per WP:RS. And it really isn't needed anyway as it mostly just repeats what Tomasevich says immediately above, even with some of the same figures. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding, ? Михаи́л Вита́льевич Шкаро́вский is a serious Russian scholar, who focuses on the history of religion&politics. A better source hardly exists for the topic "Croatian Orthodox Church" which I was planning to expand based on this very source in the nearest future!Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (Poland is Greatest of all?) I was not calling you out personally so I don’t understand the reaction. Peacemaker also has reservations so not sure how I’m the only one. I am not familiar with the source and Peacemaker is heavily experienced on sources often used for such articles. I often go to him with questions and recommendations. I agree with him that the content is getting repetitive as other sources and passages already state such. For example your edit about Ustase barely using guns but knives and axes and death pits which was already pretty much covered a sentence before. I can see that the topics of Ustashe and Serbs are highly of interest to you and you are passionate about the matter. Not sure if you have personal connections to the subject. It’s all good. But do not take my question personally. Try to be more patient with other editors in controversial areas like the Balkans on Wikipedia. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You also introduced me to Croatia Under Ante Pavelić: America, the Ustase and Croatian Genocide” by Robert B. McCormick, 2014, which I never had seen before and seems RS based on the Publishing Company. So your use of it as a source seems fair though extra sources for extreme claims would be a good idea. As I see fellow historian Yeomans took umbrage with some of McCormick’s findings in his analysis editorial. I plan to read the book however as it has some content I was never aware of before on the Ustashe. Cheers again. OyMosby (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

FAM request follow up
Hi! This is just to follow up on my April FAM request. Croatian Spring article passed through GAR, and I intend to nominate it for FAC as discussed. Could you please provide pointers where necessary/possible in the process - time permitting of course? I'll be sure to ask whenever I might have a specific question. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Charles Green (Australian soldier) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

yugoslav monitor drava
hello, Peacemaker67! i had a quick question regarding this article. i noticed that the lead states that the royal yugoslav navy began operating drava in 1921, while the article body and infobox apparently both state that the navy acquired drava in 1920. was there a period during which the ship was considered acquired but not operated by the navy?

i couldn't find "1921" used elsewhere in the article (aside from in the title of a source), so i didn't know where to look for an appropriate source. however, i did find this source, which states that "Yugoslavia finally received her much-reduced allocation of ships in March 1921" while also stating that the monitors were "[f]ormerly handed over to the Yugoslavs by the NACDEV on 15 November 1920". dying (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, I have a recently published book which describes the formation of the navy and handing over of the various ships. I'll check and update. Thanks for querying it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for Yugoslav monitor Drava, "about a heavily armoured river monitor that saw extensive service with the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla during World War I and then briefly saw action with the Yugoslav Danube Flotilla during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. It is the last of four articles about Yugoslav river monitors to come to FAC. During the invasion she was persistently attacked by Stuka divebombers who scored several ineffective hits on her until one bomb went down her funnel into her engine room, killing most of her crew and sinking her."! - sharing the page with Max Creutz, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Milorad Ekmečić
I saw your FAC withdrawal comment at this article about a bio in Serbo-Croatian. I am wondering whether you have already researched the reliability of the book, cause if you haven't I have a few comments about it which you might find helpful. Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * G’day OM. I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet. I am aware of some details about the author, publishing house and its owner and his background, but need to locate some reliable reviews of the book, which should exist given the subject was a prominent person. Searching and reading in Cyrillic hurts my brain, and it doesn’t appear to have been printed in Latin script, so anything you can help with in respect of locating reviews or with regards to the reliability would be of value. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a review of the book in Serbo-Croatian in the journal Istorija 20 veka, you can access it via CEEOL using TWL, here's the link, but I haven't found any others. Regarding the publishing houses and editors, there's a bit I would like to say. It has been published by Novosti a.d. and Naš Pečat, companies that publish Večernje Novosti and Pečat respectively, which I would say are not reliable at all. If the worldcat is right, the book was edited by editors-in-chief of these two newspapers, which for sure doesn't make it more reliable. All in all, I doubt this source can be used in a FA, but you're more experienced than me so read the review at CEEOL and judge for yourself. Let me know what you have decided and whether I can help any further with this book, OakMapping (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I’ll have a look. Presumably you are referring to Milorad Vučelić? Bearing in mind the BLP guidelines, what in addition to the material that is in his article would be relevant to his reliability as editor? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am referring to Milorad Vučelić. He was a member of the executive board of the Socialist Party of Serbia during the 90s. He was also the General Director of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) from 1992–95, i.e. during the Yugoslav wars. I believe you are aware of the propaganda of the RTS in that period. OakMapping (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, have now read the review. The book might be worth reading for interest, although the review makes it clear that it is based on eleven interviews with Ekmečić and one of his speeches (so useful at least to provide his views given he didn't give many interviews), whether there is any analysis of what he said is an open question, and there are questions about why the filmmaker Emir Kusturica was chosen to write the preface of a book about a historian. Kusturica was clearly a fan, but it makes one wonder why an eminent Serb historian was not chosen to write it. The book apparently also has serious limitations regarding his confusing attitudes to socialism, serious gaps regarding his political activity, and even his period at Sarajevo is apparently unreliable according to the reviewer, Dr Nikola Mijatov, a historian at the Institute. I'll have to think about it, as getting access to a copy will be hard (the Serbian bookstore in Australia doesn't have it) and probably expensive, and given the absolute dross and genocide denial  apparent on the Pečat website, given it is the publisher I'm just not sure it would be worth it in terms of being reliable enough at FA. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could maybe get the book but I can't guarantee anything. If I get my hands on it I can give you more details about it and send you the interviews and the speech parts via email. I doubt the rest of the book will be of much use anyway. During the next week, I will be quite busy with IRL stuff so I'll try to get the book after that. OakMapping (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any help would be appreciated, there’s no rush as I have plenty of FAC candidates either ready or nearly ready for nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Familiar with this source?
Hi PM. This source is used on the Chetniks War Crimes page to describe the limited amount of Chetniks put on trial. Is it valid enough a source to use or is it questionable enough to jeed community consensus? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks solidly reliable on face value. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. It was deemed as “ Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources” so seemed confusing. Much appreciated. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone control Balkan articles?
Hi, this edit probably means my final banning and report me for this edit to the appropriate moderators. Article "Herzegovina uprising (1875–1877)" and information "The Croat population in the Gabela area suffered the difficult living conditions in what was then Turkey." was changed to Serb population although the source states Croat population (see source). Article "List of Serbian flags" and all explained on talk(see talk page) page about "Flag of King Stefan Vladislav (Medieval Kingdom of Serbia)"  that only two colors "red and blue" are mentioned in the primary source as in others sources but we still have promotion of the modern Serbian flag with a two-color cloth from the 13th century. Article Mihailo Vojislavljević and information "John Skylitzes writes that leaders of the Bulgarian uprising called for the help "Mihailo, the ruler of Serbs, who was ruled from Kotor" although the source primary and secondary talks about "Mihailo, the  ruler of Croats, who was ruled from Kotor". Edit summary ie editor  as a reason for deleting this information says that "the source dont say that" although the primary and secondary source mentions Croats..


 * These are just some examples since I am no longer on eng Wikipedia, so I wonder if besides me in this white world exist someone who controls Serbian mythomania or I am the only one who controlled it? If this is a Wikipedia which is in the range of an encyclopedia's accuracy(internet information), can anyone stop this kind of editing and accuracy? If you(community) on Wikipedia don’t have anyone to control it then you as administrator suggest wiki community to pay someone to control it, because this no longer makes sense. Mikola22 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Charles Green (Australian soldier), about "the youngest Australian Army battalion commander during WWII, leading the 2/11th Battalion in the Aitape-Wewak campaign of 1945 after previous service in the Middle East and Greece. He is also the only commanding officer of a battalion of the post-WWII Royal Australian Regiment to have been killed on active service (in Korea)."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Clpo13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

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

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news
 * Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Srwiki admins involved in off-wiki coordination
There is a group of srwiki admins who edit on enwiki once in a while, but "vote" in enwiki disputes after each other. They have already a history of disrupting the RMs or RfCs, where with their large number of "votes" they change the result of the discussion. See the large number of their "votes" there, there, there, there, there. Today two of them "voted" in a discussion that is far away from their usual topics of interest. Although that discussion has been open for a week, they came today less than 2 hours after each other. Idk if things are related, but this kind of off-wiki coordination started after Sadko started to ask Serb editors to exchange emails. What do you suggest, as they are making such discussions impossible to be canvassing-free? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, I hope you are well. This looks to be pretty organised POV-pushing, and this sort of behaviour in the Kosovo area is bound to come unstuck rather rapidly if done in a wider community setting. The best way of addressing this IMHO is to initiate a central discussion about the issue in a central forum rather than on an individual article talk page. That way it is being watched by a significant number of long-term admins and other experienced editors who will see this behaviour and likely address it. You could possibly initiate an RfC on naming policy guidance for places in Kosovo (say, Naming conventions (Kosovo)) tied to an objective criteria as outlined in Naming conventions (geographic names) perhaps using the ethnic/linguistic makeup of the population of the town rather than continuing to fight over competing search strings in Google tests. This is a situation where English usage appears indecisive due to the small size of many of the towns and the minimal usage of their names in recent reliable English sources, and some sort of objective test may be useful. Also, WP:MODERNPLACENAME provides some guidance, and if you look at the CIA World Factbook entry for Kosovo which is mentioned by WP:MODERNPLACENAME as an official publication of a major English-speaking country that provides guidance on whether a change has become "predominant in common global usage", you will see that they use the anglicised Albanian place names first with the Serbian place names in parens after, ie Shterpce (Strpce). If you applied that to our article title guidelines (we use parens for a different purpose), I think you would use the Albanian place names. The UN and OSCE are also reliable sources for English usage, and I note that UNICEF uses Malisheve here in 2014 and the OSCE uses the dual names, but like the CIA Factbook it leads with the Albanian here in 2018. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, PM67 - much appreciated. You know that I always give special attention to your words. One of the srwiki admins even accepted that they follow each other's edits. I told him that following a friend's edits and rushing to support them with "votes" and reverts is not allowed. I consider that kind of a warning, if they repeat that behaviour I will certainly take it to ANI/I or a similar place. There seem to be even more editors involved, as srwiki admins have lately "voted" in RMs and RfCs that have nothing with Serbia - ones actually related either to Albania or to Greece. In case they continue, it will gradually become obvious who are the editors canvassing the srwiki admins. On Kosovo, I agree it is a good idea to initiate an RfC on naming policy guidance for places in Kosovo. I will see what steps are needed to do that. Indeed, the majority of places in Kosovo, especially villages, do not have a common name in English. Very few people in the English-speaking world know them, and most of them are Kosovars themselves. IMO, in such cases where a common name in English does not exist, the article should have the local name. Articles of settlements with Albanian majority should have the Albanian name. Articles of settlements with Serb majority should have the Serb name. Such a rule, I believe, would help to avoid messy discussions on the name of a few rather obscure places. In any case, the articles of Kosovo settlements in most cases, especially all the large cities, already use the local name. It is a small minority that is causing messy disputes among editors. Thanks again PM67. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Brčko bridge massacre?
I came across this article Brčko bridge massacre when patrolling. Various seemingly reliable sources are reporting commemorations of it but oddly enough I could not find any reports on this massacre besides the commemorations. It seems like if you killed 100 people in 1992 there would be some contemporary news coverage, ICTY ruling, or mentions in history books but I wasn't seeing it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did a minute search and found some documentation by ICTY and some other papers and books.
 * - https://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/trans/en/960515IT.htm
 * - https://www.redalyc.org/journal/4069/406958169011/html/
 * - https://books.google.com/books?id=nltdtAo38K0C&pg=PA93&dq=brcko+bridge&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-rsjA2_3zAhXuc98KHU4tBVYQ6AF6BAgIEAM
 * - https://books.google.com/books?id=YMr4mq9BrIUC&pg=RA2-PA25&dq=brcko+bridge&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-rsjA2_3zAhXuc98KHU4tBVYQ6AF6BAgFEAM


 * OyMosby (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, g'day . The bridge was definitely blown up on that day, and witnesses stated that nearly two busloads of people were walking across it when the explosion happened. Certainly Helsinki Watch and the ICTY have mentions of it in their work, and two of the sources above are from Helsinki Watch and ICTY and provide the most detail. A couple of the sources above don't look real flash to me, but those two are certainly enough to support an article, even if it is only a stub. There are apparently significant difficulties with the casualty figure as the victims fell in the Sava (a wide and fast flowing river that runs almost immediately into what is now Serbia) and were not from the local area. Given this occurred right at the beginning of the war and the JNA/Serbs took over Brčko immediately afterwards, it is no great mystery why it didn't receive much if any accurate news coverage. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, and thanks for closing that discussion in WT:MILHIST; it got way more hostile than I expected and closure was absolutely the right call. I'll run it thru WP:RSN once I've figured out the correct way to do that. --Ljleppan (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I would just drop a line on Milhist talk when you start the discussion to we know it is happening. I'd be happy to help with drafting something. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Glina Pogrom
Hi PM. Is the Glina Massacre officially known as a pogrom? Unlike the other massacre by Chetniks who h is literally called a Pogrom, was Glina cited as one? Definitely more were killed by the Ustashe. This IP has been nothing but abusive, offensive and pov persistent in adding it despite other editors reverting him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pogrom&diff=1054848899&oldid=1054758195 if you could take a look, I would greatly appreciate it. I don’t want to violate 3RR. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pogroms are usually associated with violent riots resulting in the killing of Jews (and sometimes other ethnic groups, although the description of any activities in occupied Yugoslavia as "pogroms" is not common in sources). That is not a description I would use for what happened at Glina. I see Scottywong has semi-protected the article and imposed a 72 hour block. This may be a known sock, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it be reverted from the article then? I can’t as I already am at 3RR. I had the oage semi-protected and filed a sock report earlier. I was called a Holocaust Denier and Ustashe by the Ip (JohnGotten). They are definitely a sock as they referred to my sock case. OyMosby (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the entry and suggested discussion on talk. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A question?
When listed under a "Notable pleople" section of an artice, is eadh person listed subject to a source?

Any help will be appreciated - Pendright (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, . Can you link to an example? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WAVES article. Recently, a Notable people section (listing people) was added to it with links to wikipedia but each is unsourced. Should each be sourced with a proper reference? Thanks!
 * Yes, I should say so, per WP:SOURCELIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Fifth column Invasion of Yugoslavia
Howdy PM. I recall a while back you had found a source discussing a proposed Hungarian fifth column during the invasion (despite pretty much all the fifth columns not being big enough to have a strong impact on the defeat). Do you recall the source? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Eastick
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tom Eastick you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Eastick
The article Tom Eastick you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tom Eastick for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news
 * Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page.
 * The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
 * The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao, "about a Yugoslav ship that was built just before WWII as a royal yacht, and intended to be used as a patrol boat, escort or guard ship in wartime. She was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and served in various roles under their flag until 1943, including for training anti-submarine warfare crew. Returned to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile, she was refitted and used as a tender for a flotilla of motor gunboats in the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas. Taken over by the Partisans, she continued to serve in the Yugoslav Navy until the late 1970s."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers Gerda! I hope you are having a great day! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac
Hi PM. Not sure if you saw my previous message about the Hungarian Fifth Column you once mention you had a source for. Another matter I wisehd to inquire with you about are the recent latge edits made to the article Aloysius Stepinac. It seems mostly sourced but some edits don’t seem to be. All edits appear to be of one side however. You seem pretty familiar with the subject. Was the bishop more a supporter of the Ustashe and their genocide or a spineless apposer to afraid to speak out. I keep seeing sources state both. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven’t been able to locate a source for the Hungarian fifth column, but I’ll keep looking because it seems likely there was one. The Germans certainly had one. Re: the Archbishop, it is very complicated and the sources conflict. It seems likely that he both supported the independent state and worked (at least behind the scenes) to ameliorate their worst excesses. I did rewrite the early life parts of the article a few years back, but I felt I needed more sources I didn’t have access to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems the new edits the past few days seem to show he made no attempt or opposing to the violence against Serb civilians. Per Goldstien it seems. If you have the time, could you vet some of the large additions? They seem a bit aimed at painting a different picture based on you explanation. I just want to make sure I am not inadvertently helping this collaborator or supporting them. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll try to take a look over the weekend. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks PM. I really appreciate it. OyMosby (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Eastick
The article Tom Eastick you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tom Eastick for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia Map 10th century.
Hi PM. I could use your input. Looking at the Kingdom of Croatia article of 925-1102 AD, the main map in the infobox seems to sprawl far more area than I think I ever read about. The recent edits to the Serbs article reminded me given Serbian Rasa and Croatian Kingdom appear to conflict here. I have read a about Serbian vassal states and such but not much of Croatian ones. Do you happen to have any info or know any editors more privy to South Slavic historical geographic states? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. Outside my area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

 * Thanks ! You too! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Schichau-class torpedo boat scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Schichau-class torpedo boat article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 21, 2022. 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 21, 2022, 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 - talk to me?  14:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the Ba Congress article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 27, 2022. Thanks! <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  13:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Jim! Way ahead of me… Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

revert
In the edit summary of of  you asked: websites aren't italicised are they? Change of policy I'm not aware of?

In, the name of the website goes in website. If necessary (rarely) the name of the corporate entity that publishes the website goes in publisher. We are citing the work (the website), not the corporate entity (the publisher). When the name of the website and the name of the corporate entity are substantially similar, publisher should be omitted.

In my edit I changed Australian War Memorial to Australian War Memorial because 'Australian War Memorial' is the name of the website (that text appears at the top of every page of the website). That 'Australian War Memorial' is also the corporate name means that Australian War Memorial is not needed. This change of mine was also consistent with the already existing National Archives of Australia.

Another change that I made was to replace the cryptic 'AWM' with 'Australian War Memorial' in templates. I did this because readers without javascript or readers who are reading a paper copy of an article must first decode 'AWM' before they can search the bibliography for the matching citation. In the and matching  templates, I italicized 'Australian War Memorial' and 'National Archives' so that when the page is rendered, the short-form citations match their long-form counterparts in the bibliography.

ref in Sutton is redundant so I removed it. ref was removed because nothing links to that citation. That citation might be better placed in §Further reading if it is not to be used as a source for the article text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was unaware of the October 2019 RfC, and having now read it, I see what the argument is and accept the principles underlying it. I can't believe I have dozens of FAs that are not compliant with this and no-one has ever brought it up to my knowledge. I don't think the MOS is clear enough, but that's a separate issue. I have reverted back to your version of the citations and refs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Eastick
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bushveldt Carbineers
This was not a British Army regiment - all sources I can see say irregular unit. It appears to have been financed locally and was effectively a local unit Kingbird1 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Irregular units can be British. The regiment was formed by the Intelligence Branch (part of the Adjutant General's Department) in 1901, with encouragement by locals. It was equipped, paid and supplied by the British. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not however British Army. Kingbird1 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What’s your reliable source for that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

 * Good on ya, Sdkb! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Mr. Stradivarius



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Opabinia regalis
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Opabinia regalis
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news


 * Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.


 * Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration


 * Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Miscellaneous


 * The functionaries email list () will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Croatian Propagandists
Hi PM. I wanted to ask, are propagandists usually linked as a listed category as is proposed here ? Jakov spread Holocaust Denial Propaganda but does that warrant “Croatian Propagandists” category list? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perica has explicitly said he was the Croatian government's "official propagandist", and that is a reliable source. I would include Sedlar in the category on that basis unless Fisher clearly contradicts Perica. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt he was one. But is this normal thing on Wikipedia to list “Ethnicity/Nationality Propagandists”? I haven’t seen such for Bosnian, Albanian, Serbian, Hungarian, etc. OyMosby (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't know about whether the ethnic propagandist category is a "good" one or not from a WP perspective. Best to talk to someone who is more active in the category area. are active in that area, maybe see what they have to say? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a whole tree under Category:Propagandists by nationality so there is no reason to exclude Croatians in particular. If there are concerns about this whole tree (which I can understand), then the top category and all subcategories should be nominated for deletion at WP:CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I wasn’t really aware of Propagandists being subcategorized by ethnicity or nationality. It honestly seems very weird and perhaps not the right way. However being that it is currently a method used, Croatia is not except and I will reinstate the catagory. Thank you all for your help and knowledge. Happy New Year! OyMosby (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I decline to comment here, as I'm only actively involved in non-mainspace categorization. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * These categories are by nationality, and should be limited to people who were connected as nationals to a particular country. we should not confuse ethnicity and nationality. That said, like almost every other occupation we break this by nationality. There are three other questions though that might be worth asking. Are propagandists actually a definable group as such, or is creating propaganda done by people in a bunch of other occupations, and so this particular part of what they do is not defining. Sewcond, can we define who is and who is not a propagandist in an NPOV enough way that placement in the category can be clearly done without dispute? In this case, the person in questin is clearly Croatian, however is it beyond dispute they were a propagandists? If that is disputed, and regularly so when we categorize, this may not be a good category. Lastly, is it really useful to have a nationality category of 1 as we do in this case. Just because we have some nationality sub-categories does not mean we need to have every one where we have at least 1 article. 1 article categories are not very usefuland to some extent impede navigation. We allow then with occupations, but do not require every occupation category to split out at the national level, so we do not mandate them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the fact that he is the only one made it seem pointless. OyMosby (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 Military Historian of the Year

 * Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for the warm welcome!

Kerbyki (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * No worries! Enjoy editing! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks H! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, PeaceKeeper1234 21:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Jadran (training ship)

 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Jadran FA!
Just thought I'd drop by to extend my congratulations :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks again for your review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

schichau-class torpedo boat
hello, Peacemaker67! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * according to the article body, 22 boats were built, and 20 survived the war. no.28 was discarded (transferred to the army), while the lead mentions "one being lost in the early days of the war".  do you know which one was lost?  i am not sure if its loss is specifically mentioned in the article body.  it does note that no.26 "struck a mine [but] later returned to service", and that no.22 "ran aground and sank... but was salvaged and repaired later".  (i am guessing that the boat being referred to might be no.26, as gardiner mentions that all but nos.26 and 28 were converted into minesweepers and survived the war.  i do not have access to the cernuschi and o'hara source cited for the eventual return to service of no.26.)
 * both the blurb and article lead state that 10 boats were converted into minesweepers before the war, and that the remaining 9 were converted in 1917. presumably, this means that there were a total of 19 surviving boats in 1917, even though the article body states that 20 survived the war.  is this a discrepancy that should be resolved?
 * with the way the final fate of d10 is worded in the article body, it appears possible that the boat was sunk in september. however, both the blurb and article lead assert that it was lost "sometime after September 1943".  is it known that the boat had survived at least the month of september?  i feel that the wording used in gardiner suggests that it was sunk in september, not after, though the meaning behind the way gardiner structured the sentence may not have been deliberate.
 * Not at all, I will examine the sources and confirm. Thanks for taking a look at it, and for your questions! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today got the article, "about a class of 22 dinky little Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats that were constructed in the late 19th century and were effectively obsolete by the time World War I broke out. They were used mainly as minesweepers and as part of local defence forces for Adriatic ports during the war, but some saw action. After the war, most were quickly broken up, but a few were handed over to the Yugoslavs (hence my interest), and one was a training vessel for the Yugoslav Naval Academy for more than fifteen years. Captured by the Italians and then the Germans, she wasn't much use for anything by that stage and was lost around the time of the German withdrawal from the Bay of Kotor."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and today for Ba Congress, "about the final roll of the dice for Draža Mihailović's Chetnik guerilla movement in occupied Yugoslavia during WWII. Conducted at a point when large parts of the Chetnik movement had been drawn into collaboration with the Germans and their puppets, it may have been conducted with the tacit approval of the Germans. Its main outcome was the creation of a single political party and political platform for the Chetniks, something that came far too late in proceedings to have any impact on the eventual Allied decision to abandon the Chetniks and throw their full weight behind Josip Broz Tito's Partisans."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ustaše intro
PM, the newest version of the intro seems odd. I would think the original 2020 version made more sense. I restated it. The new version states that Nazi racial theory was what led to the Genocide of Serbs but it was actually the Ustashe self proclaimed anti Serb sentiment. The Ustashe were not persecuting Slavs in general. But Croatisizing them such as Bosniaks. The NDH took in 200,000 Slovenian refugees. They weren't targeted.

The new intro had two paragraphs restating the same thing as a user just inserted another paragraph about racial beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ustaše&diff=914309915&oldid=913997786

What do you think of it? I ws going by Fischer. The other content was added with no sourcing. OyMosby (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37 • Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed   in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
 * The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration
 * Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
 * The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
 * A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jadran (training ship)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 March 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/March 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table
Template:MILHIST Quarterly Reviewing Table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A Class nominations
Hello,

I have been struggling with nominating some GA articles for A Class. As this is my initial nom for A Class, I am grossly unfamiliar with the procedure, and the process has defied all my attempts. Could you please nominate Oswald Boelcke for me? I'll just copy the procedure for the other articles.

Also, is there a requirement for counter-balancing reviews by a nominator? (Like me?)

Please reply on my talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

April TFAs
Hi Peacemaker, I know that you are busy in RL, but I note that you have several potential TFAs down for April. The requests page is filling up and you could do with transferring some over before the scheduler gets to work and it's a done deal. If you are really busy, say the word and I'll move them over for you. PS Apparently April includes 1 May this year. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I have nommed a couple. One potential had already been TFA, and I don't think I'll nom the 1 May one, it can run whenever. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)