User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peacemaker67. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Yugoslav monitor Vardar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav monitor Vardar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Peacemaker, just to let you know, I fixed one of my entries after you checked them - the article was promoted to GA at 23:00 on 31 October, and I don't want to miss out on any points ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How do withdraw or cancel an FA-nomination? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonas. You can use the @FAC ping template (by putting @FAC in the double wriggly brackets) in a comment on the nomination page, or ask FAC Coordinator Ian Rose (who is also the lead Milhist coord) directly on his talk page. I think that is a good decision. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems when I do that this is what I get? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll just ask Ian. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav monitor Drava 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 Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm feeling pretty wasted right now - would you mind If I do the review first thing tomorrow? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No rush, mate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a new source on Johann Mickl. I haven't read it yet. If it adds new insight I will post it here if you want MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I still want to get him to FA at some stage. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I didn't know which edit you thanked for but I'm assuming it was the one pertaining to the Blitzkrieg issue. I have added four expert opinions. But this guy keeps deleting them and adding a contemporary source from a Time Magazine journalist asserting it was a doctrine. I don't need to explain how ridiculous that is. But he is choosing to be decidedly uncivil and continues to revert. My concern is that he does not understand the subject that he writes about much less what it takes to reach a Featured Article - supposedly the best Wikipedia has to offer. Dapi89 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I object to the charge I've made any attacks and I think you're mistaken: Parky is not civil (refer to my talk page). Like I said to Misterbee, if others feel insulted they should perhaps blame the cause on their own edits and the weaknesses of them. Some of these people don't deal in logic and when that happens the situation usually requires a robust response. Dapi89 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you has been civil (at times), and your response is pretty arrogant, frankly. Taking the approach you've outlined doesn't help WP or you, all you will do is make other potentially helpful editors not want to review your articles. I have a list of editors whose articles I will not review, because they either fail the civility test or arrogantly think they know everything about a subject. It's to your own detriment if you don't want to work collaboratively with others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Yugoslav monitor Drava you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav monitor Drava for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Yugoslav monitor Sava you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav monitor Sava for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking too long to respond on the GAN nomination page. I was away from town for a few days without internet access. I'll get to it in the next day or two.--Saxum (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, if you could just address the two major issues, I'll finish up the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 Week for Edit Warring and Personal Attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Peacemaker67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on Tomb Raider contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm extending you good faith and accepting your apology as sincere. However, any future personal attacks may be met with a block longer than a week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

fair enough. And thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		for June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina, Operation Rösselsprung (1944), and German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations. Good job and keep going MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MB! I will. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day Peacemaker!

Would you happen to have access to a copy of Fascism's European Empire: Italian Occupation during the Second World War by Davide Rodogno? Reason I ask is there is a table at the back (Table 4, p419) that covers the municipalities in Dalmatia. As part of my update to the maps of NDH I am creating a map of The Governate of Dalmatia. You can see half the table in the preview on Amazon but not the whole of it. Cheers mate! XrysD (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but I can access both pages on Google Books. Try that, if you can't, I'll see if I can screenshot it for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that is odd! At home I couldn't access that page on Google Books, but here on a different machine I can! I think it must store somewhere how many pages you have accessed on a particular machine and then limit based on that. Oh well, thanks for the help! XrysD (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help, I've screenshot what you need. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi, this is User:Cam. I think you have me confused with someone else regarding work on this project. I haven't edited any articles about battlecruisers to my knowledge. I received an award for this project earlier this year on my talk page, which I removed. I should have notified your project then, I apologize for not doing so. Best wishes to you and your fellow project members, Cam (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no doubt. Sorry about that. Will rectify. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday. Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November. In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles. For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges. Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year. Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we use a newspaper from 1965 or image of that report, for claiming the "victory"(in result parameter) which originally resulted UN mandated ceasefire? Even though the newspaper has only represented what a commander(WP:PRIMARY) has said. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think we could use it directly, ie to state that the commander in question referred to it as a victory, but the reliable academic consensus would be what we would put in the infobox. Depends on the full context, I s'pose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's something I thought. If you would like to analyze after seeing the sources, then consider having a look at WP:RSN#Newspaper sources. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Hello, Peacemaker67, thank you for your welcoming messages. I will remember to fill out edit summaries in future. Kind regards, Bumbled (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Projekat Rastko is an online library, hosting a variety of books and resources related with Serbian history and culture. As far as I know, it does respect copyright (at least for newer works). As for reliability, it's a mixed bag: the material ranges from seminal works by respectable historians and scientists, to fringe-y revisionist-y nationalist-y pamphlets. Thus, every reference to it should be judged on its merits, not just by where it is hosted.

Now, the source I put at Đukanović admittedly leans towards the latter (as can be inferred from its title), but at least it provides basic facts (by citing the Partisan document archives) who was executed at Ostrog at the time. I agree that we need a much better source though. Regards. No such user (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I understand what Rastko is. My view is that the source in this case is unreliable. It shouldn't be used just because it provides some information we don't otherwise have. The details of the death of Đukanović (and the others) is controversial, and only reliable sources should be used for material covering that topic. That is why I removed it. Rastko itself tends to the fringe-y end of the scale, IMO, although there may well be some sources hosted there that would be reliable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming message. You're right about error in my good faith edits made by me in "Brandenburgers", I've just copied wrong data. But nevertheless, real Allied (Yugoslav) losses at the graveyard were much lower than German estimates, 179 killed, 63 wounded, and 19 missing, which you can find in Odić's book "Desant na Drvar" (Vojnoistorijski institut Beograd, 1981.), unfortunately the source is in Serbo-Croatian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.49.117 (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we include both. See the Milhist A-Class article Operation Rösselsprung (1944) for comprehensive coverage of casualties during that operation, including contrasting of Partisan and German sources. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A very Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, Peacemaker67, and a very Happy New Year! Enjoy yourself and have a really great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men! Love from all the Asher household. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cliftonian same to you and yours mate! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for your reviews as well as the offered assistance re Milhist ACR. I'd like to take you up on that offer since my ACR experience is fairly limited. Which articles would you recommend me to take to ACR first? I planned to take the Battle of the Barracks there once a timeline of the same is in place (and further edits to the article are done) as a way of improving that particular article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I'd take United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia there first. It's very close, and you'll learn heaps from the review process. I'm very happy to support any nom of your Croatian War of Independence GAs, and will chip in as needed to sort out any prose issues. You have the technical stuff down pat, anyway, no doubt about that. Just give me a heads up if you nominate (I should pick it up in the usual course of events, but it's worth tweaking my attention, because I have a huge watchlist). Once you get into the rhythm of it, I think you could nominate two or three at a time, and the community will soon realise the quality of your nominations, and they will start to roll along. You have a lot of potential A-Class articles there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do that then... The timeline article has yet to materialise so I'm in no rush re Battle of the Barracks. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

When a GA nomination fails, what is the next step? I received the message but it hasn't shown that it has failed on the talk page. Is this an error? Khazar (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

see my comment on your talkpage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
		Best wishes for the season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hawk, same to you mate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Great minds, PM -- was about to archive or did you want to...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just popped a closed template on them to discourage further voting. You might like to do the honours, as I appear "involved". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do -- and congrats on your place, well deserved! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Good on you. Same to you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Thank you for your congratulatory post. Pendright (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

		2014 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for having "a strong year of content creation in a contentious field and significant contributions to the project through work as a co-ord," I award you this Bronze Wiki. Congratulations! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker67. You have new messages at Tchaliburton's talk page.
Message added 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4 Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all! 114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal! For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here. We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup. Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Peacemaker67,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Cheers! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. I was surprised this time how bad my English must be. I will try to refrain from submitting such poor penmanship for GA in the future. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I enjoy reading your articles and usually your English just needs a few tweaks here and there. I think ACR will be easier after this GA though, at least so far as the prose is concerned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why I removed the section? Because it's already on the end. Now it's again doubled plus, we read about his death before his wartime life. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would have been better to use an edit summary, so ppl knew why you were doing it, hey? When ppl remove content from Yugo articles and don't leave an edit summary, I usually revert on sight. In any case, I've moved it to the lead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Gday again. I'd like to personally thank you for your efforts here. In hindsight there were a few key aspects of the topic that were missing (especially the legacy section but also the information about indigenous personnel - both of which I had in my mind to include at various points in the development of the article but seem to have forgotten in the end - or been too lazy to include, I'm not sure which). Its seems obvious to me now that the article was not ready to be nominated for GA when I did (my failing). I guess that's why we put such articles up for review, but unfortunately one doesn't always get someone familiar enough with a topic to spot the things that are missing. Anyway thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all, it was a pleasure. I wouldn't say it wasn't ready, I do tend toward the tougher end of GAR. I also know a fair amount about this topic, making for more detailed scrutiny on content than a soldier like me can provide on a ship, for example. And it is a BIG topic for an article. It really is a very good article now, and I hope to see it at ACR soon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw my nomination of HMCS Baddeck (K147) for the time being as I simply don't have the time to give it the attention it needs at the moment. Thanks for your work on the review. Hopefully I'll be able to make the improvements when time allows. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted my edits from early this morning [1] [2] requesting to know why I made them.

I followed the principles laid down in WP:PIPELINK and more specifically WP:EASTEREGG.

In this specific case, 'the German Navy (German: Kriegsmarine)' had to be piped twice to link to the proper articles.The resulting text is indistinguishable from 'the German Navy (German: Kriegsmarine)' until one follows the links.

Apart from that, 'German Navy' is the name of the current naval formation of the Federal Republic of Germany which has no historic links to the 'Kriegsmarine'. Historically speaking, there are eight or nine different German navies around (depending on counting), so one has to be specific. In the case of T3 there is a further one, the 'k.u.k. Kriegsmarine', involved. In order to prevent confusing and misleading readers, I have changed references accordingly, using a phrase borrowed from historians who deal with German naval history in general and not only in the context of World War II.

I hope this answers your questions. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point about the multiple navies is understood. However, your change of Third Reich in the infobox to Nazi Germany is unhelpful. In many cases, particularly when referring to the Austrian part of the Third Reich, I have used Third Reich on purpose to show that it encompasses Austria as well as Germany. I do this consistently throughout all articles. I see no reason that WP:EGG is being violated in this case, in fact it is more useful for the reader. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, is it o.k. for me to change it back then?

As 'Third Reich' is a valid redirect, why not use that one? Personally, I refrain from using the term, as it originates in Nazi propaganda, however. But I was more concerned about the "no wrap" thing, than PC. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy for you to change the German Navy bit back to Kriegsmarine, but I believe Third Reich is a completely legitimate and useful redirect to use for Nazi Germany. Please don't change that. Where it says Nazi Germany, use Third Reich, and I'll be happy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker. I was hoping you would pick up on that. That's why I left a fairly detailed ed sum. reflecting my awareness of the incendiary connotations of the term and whether it was wise or not to link it. Fully support reversion. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for creating that phenomenal article! Denny had been on my to-do list forever but I'd struggle to have matched that effort. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Always keen to see politicians with military service properly covered. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bill Denny (Australian politician) 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 The Drover's Wife -- The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Bill Denny (Australian politician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bill Denny (Australian politician) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Drover's Wife -- The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stanley Price Weir you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

		The WikiChevrons
		For completing an awesome 24 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav monitor Morava 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 Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to work on that article at the moment, a few suggestions:

1. The infobox namesake links should link to Great Morava rather than the Czech-Slovak-Austrian river system, I thinkY
2. Footnote 18 (Gardiner, p. 422) refers to three monitors given to Romania, rather than to Yugoslavia (or the acronym I keep forgetting)
3. The whole sentence does not make sense to me (could be me though), with the acronym becoming Yugoslavia there is no need for a but, I guess
4. Have you considered to cut the first sentence in two, one on the monitor and one on the class, that way the name ship would have the same name as the ship class?

Regards ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, have made some changes. However, p.422 of Conway's clearly states the names of the four monitors transferred to the "Yugoslav" (actually KSCS at that time) Navy. Morava (ex-A-H Koros), Sava (ex-A-H Bodrog), Drava (ex-AH Enns), and Vardar (ex-AH Bosna). Confusingly, the A-Hs, KSCS/Yugoslavs and NDH used the same name for river monitors in a few cases, but they were sometimes different vessels. eg The A-H Bosna/Temes(II)/Bosna ended up the Yugoslav Vardar, but the A-H Koros became Yugoslav Morava and ended up being the NDH Bosna... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. According to my book (reprint 1986), page 422 deals with Romanian Ardeal (ex-A-H Temes), Besarabia (ex-Inn), and Bucovina (ex-Sava); none other river monitors are mentioned by name. Page 426 describes the transfer in more detail. Unless the page numbering changed (which I doubt, since Fn19 checks out), the page number for Fn18 should be 426 then. Regards, ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, my eyesight must really be going... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi - quick note to say thanks for your constructive criticism on this! I've spent the weekend ferreting through the local library and have some material to be going on with, but it'll take a couple of days longer to get it all assembled - apologies. I've updated Reconstitution and the Hundred Days, but not yet gone over the Spring Offensive (which is perhaps the most complex part).

Do you have a page number for Bloody Red Tabs, by the way? Would be good to mention the CRA's death but I don't have access to a copy. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Stanley Price Weir you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stanley Price Weir for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)