User talk:Robert Brukner

Edit summary
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! - the WOLF  child  21:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources for Commissioned warships of the RCN
Just a heads up, look up Ken Macpherson and RCN. He has a ton of books your looking for. Llammakey (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Some very important secondary sources had tiny print runs that are hard to find. I'll check him out. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Refugees and Greece
Hi Robert, It's hard to tell the number of refugees and the number of Syrian refugees now currently in Greece. I know there are Syrian people who moved and live in Greece since 2010. UNHCR (Daily_Arrival_Greece_27022016.pdf) gives an estimate of ~2,500 daily arrivals (average) in Greece during the last seven days. BBC gives more than 9,000 arrivals every day. Now, since the borders are virtually closed, there are several thousands temporarily staying at reception centres, sports stadiums, train stations, while others, anywhere they can find: Guest rooms, houses of friends and relatives. The last days it seems that only Syrian people can get through the border to Central Europe, a maximum of 500 a day. If 2,500 arrive and 500 depart for Central Europe, meaning ~60,000 new arrivals each month, there is going to be a big problem. --Odysses (☏) 21:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information and updates. I'm trying to keep the data fresh to the end of every month. But without official stats its impossible for some countries. Maybe Eurostat will update its numbers shortly. I worry for Greece :-( Robert Brukner (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

RCN A-class reviews
Hi Robert, I hope that you're not discouraged by the reviews I just posted. I think that both articles are useful as is and can be developed to A-class status, but a fair amount of work is needed to get them there. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Thanks. Can't get there without advice and help from others!! Robert Brukner (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading new list of Battle Ships in WWII
I enjoyed reading the new list of the Battle Ships in WWII that you created. I know that it was a lot of work. Good job! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate hearing that from you. It means a lot, to me. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (List of ship classes of the Second World War) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of ship classes of the Second World War, Robert Brukner!

Wikipedia editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Another fantastic installment in the lists of WWII warships. Thanks!"

To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.
 * Thanks again! Its nice to get your positive feedback. Robert Brukner (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert Brukner. I suggest redirecting or soft redirecting the talk pages of the lists included here to Talk:List of ships of the Second World War to keep any discussion centralized. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Brilliant suggestion. Robert Brukner (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cruiser into List of cruisers of the Second World War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. thanks for the heads up. Robert Brukner (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of File:HMCS Preserver (AOR 510).jpg
File:HMCS Preserver (AOR 510).jpg, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of File:HMCS Preserver (AOR 510).jpg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

all those speedy deletions
Hi, you have been overwhelmed by those speedy deletion notifications. The picture itself is not actually being deleted, just the category here on English Wikipedia; and any talk page. If you want to add categories, please do so on the commons page where the picture actually is, for example commons:File:HMCS Arras H-549.jpg. The use of the pictures on articles will not be affected at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Robert Brukner (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Category move
Hello, Robert. It appears that you recently moved Category:Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (Historic) to Category:List of ships of the Royal Canadian Navy, but you didn't complete all the steps required to finish the move, as described at Moving a page. In future, you may find it simpler to request assistance with category moves at WP:CFD, rather than trying to do it yourself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thank You !! Robert Brukner (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Well, I am flattered sir! Thank you very much. Beers on me next time you're in Toronto! Robert Brukner (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Recently added "See also sections" to ship class articles
I've just noticed that you've started adding List of ships of the Second World War and List of ship classes of the Second World War to some of the relevant ship class articles in a "See also" section. I believe that those lists are generally to broad to be of much use to readers, and that the list of ships in not relevant to class articles in any way, but you should be aware that I've started a discussion on the subject at WT:SHIPS that you might want to contribute to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Just delete it if it doesn't fit. But tell me where it is, and why, so I can avoid the error in future. Thanks!! Robert Brukner (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Auxiliary net laying ship classes has been nominated for discussion
Category:Auxiliary net laying ship classes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! How are you? Lets coordinate. The category Category:Auxiliary gateship classes is connected to the very structured Category:Auxiliary ship classes, and via that category linked to numerous other categories of auxiliary classes. Why don't we just use the one? So please go ahead and delete Category:Auxiliary net laying ship classes, and might as well consider also deleting Category: net laying ship classes      Robert Brukner (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"List of..." category
Hi Robert. You created Category:List of ships of the Royal Canadian Navy which is a rather odd name for a category. The edit summary hints that the category name is the result of a discussion somewhere. Could you elaborate and/or move (e.g. via WP:CFD) the category to a more appropriate title? DexDor(talk) 21:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Old news, changes encouraged during class reviews, mistakes, misunderstandings. Personally I would like to change it to "Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy". Time is my enemy. Is there a way to change the name and automatically change the links across wikipedia? Perhaps just a simple redirect? Feel free to jump in!  Robert Brukner (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of British Empire brigades of the Second World War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 1st Army Tank Brigade, 1st Mounted Brigade and 2nd Mounted Brigade. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Casualties
Per French The figure of 385,000 UK Army casualties includes wounded. The table lists only dead.Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. Correcting now. Robert Brukner (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military history of the British Empire during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

re Brits in WWII
Everything's fine. We've got a bunch of good new material Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War, and thank you. It's not going to be tossed out (although some parts of it may be edited out in the course of merging). It's a good article and you're doing fine and thank you. Nobody thinks its bad work, its all about process and people being protective of their work.

As to the Commonwealth/Empire thing: speaking for myself, I think "Commonwealth" is probably better. But 1) it doesn't matter what I think or you think but what the community agrees on, and 2) I'm willing to be convinced the other way. For the project one has to go into these discussions with an open mind, when and to the extent possible (sometimes it's not). But let's leave that discussion for later. I believe that if we lay it out correctly and argue effectively that either "Commonwealth" or "Commonwealth and Empire" will win the day. But if not, not, and it doesn't matter all that much since we have redirects to take people to the correct articles.

But anyway there's no hurry in these things. Work on some other stuff or whatever while this other stuff plays out.

Our long-range goal here is to have the best possible articles and the happiest editor corps. Both of those require compromise and seeing some of your work overwritten by others. I suspect that, like me, you prefer to research a subject in solitude and create a finished product. And the Wikipedia is more like sitting around a table while everyone shouts about what the article should include and some scribble right over your notes.

It's maddening sometimes. A while back I had an article, which I created with skill and care and effort, deleted on (IMO) insufficient grounds. I'm still mad about that. But I have to shake it off.

It'll work out. The main thing is not to worry if stuff takes a few weeks to work out, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I truly appreciate your input. I'm not patient with summary judgements and executions. But I figured that turning to cooler heads and older hands for advice and input into the process would be appropriate. I will take your advice and move on to other articles for a while. BTW- I am only about 30% done on the article. Most of what I have done is more of a sketch, then the final product. Thanks for your time Robert Brukner (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dieppe Raid into Military history of Canada during World War II. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you. I appreciate this very much. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
The lead para of the anzac article says it was disbanded in 1916, yet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_and_New_Zealand_Army_Corps&curid=964382&diff=731383028&oldid=731299122 - not sure what is happening there, would appreciate you have a closer look. Thanks JarrahTree 01:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. ANZAC was briefly reformed in 1941 in Greece. Its mentioned in the article in the section about World War II. I've slightly adjusted the intro accordingly. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note the comments at Nick D are partially part of a much larger argument about how things like the british empire gets out of hand and becomes a nightmare. You are probably wrong in the general sense of things, but how you conduct yourself, and how people also conduct themselves is where and how wikipedia sometimes grows well and sometimes get very very messy.


 * Consensus as to the general makeup of things is a process many new editors who are so sure they are right about a particular point come a very nasty fall sometimes. Just because a group of countries collaborate does not give them an appelation like empire - the very nature of WP:RS and the necessity of giving adequate proof of what the collaboration entails does not re-create the british empire out of the air.  I also hold nothing but commiseration towards your approach, the wikipedian experience can be a good or bad one depending on the topics and 'fights' you choose.  I personally want nothing further on this issue as I am not satisfied that there is the magic grail that specifies when the degrees of involvement (and separation) between australia and britain and the 'empire'.  If it is exists, that is what you should look for, not personal affect responses to relate to fellow editors.  Best of luck enjoy your experience here, but after your response at Nicks, and mine here, that is enough for me. Ta for the experience. JarrahTree 01:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of Empire in the context. I am picking and choosing my battles. At the moment, editors that are pushing down on a more nuanced perspective are ascendant. Regardless of what Wikipedians choose to call the British Empire and Commonwealth during the Second World War, it remains true that the Dominions played an integral role in, and made great sacrifices, in defence of themselves, their own colonies, other Dominions and their colonies, Britain and its colonies, and the entire Imperial system. Constitutional legalities are one thing. De facto command and control, integration of arms (not just collaboration), shared command, delegated command, the sterling area, etc... are elements of one very large complex story that Wikipedia does not address. Ignoring it does not resolve it. But at the moment I am not prepared to challenge the many editors (mostly from the US) who push back on the story. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In general you may be right that Wikipedia does not address this well, but there are exceptions : take a look at Hawkeye7's South West Pacific Area (command), which gets into the intricacies of commanding allies in war. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Eddaido (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC) -

Categories
Just in case no-one thinks of it, thank you for your recent efforts to improve the categories on so many of the articles I've worked on. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one thought of it! :) So thank you very much!!  I figure its long over due and will help build a stronger network of linked material about these subjects. Robert Brukner (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories for deletion
If you come across a category that is empty, please don't delete the categories as a way of deleting it as eg you did here, as nothing will happen except for attracting the attention of people like me who look for uncategorised categories! If a category is empty, then please tag it with db-empty and it will disappear in a matter of days. Le Deluge (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you !!! I did not know about this. I appreciate your direction. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Military units in Burma in WW II
Hi Robert, a long time ago when I was a new user, someone had to point out the way categories worked to me (check if you like, archive 1 of my talk archives, about sub-categories). Now there's some concern about the way you've been creating categories for military units in countries in World War II, shared by me, I should add. Please come and join the discussion at WT:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Military history categories
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about the categories you have created and are they a correct use of the categorisation system. Your thoughts and input would be appreciated Nthep (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Military History WikiProject Newcomer of the Year

 * Thank you for your recognition, its is very much appreciated. Robert Brukner (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:World War II theatres involving the United Kingdom has been nominated for discussion
Category:World War II theatres involving the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like your input in a discussion
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
Why did you add CCGS_Alexander_Henry to Category:Canadian Government Ship? CGS is a code used for ships that predates HMCS and CCGS. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article
I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a British Empire Project member interested in colonial or military history. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kenyan women in World War II


A tag has been placed on Category:Kenyan women in World War II indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kenyans in World War II


A tag has been placed on Category:Kenyans in World War II indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)