User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 24

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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

This is to let you know that the 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 15, 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 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 15, 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Uroš Drenović article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 27, 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 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 27, 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

Thank you for constant quality and cheers! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! And thank you for appreciation and positive messages! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi PM, hope you are doing alright. Today on the Franjo Tudjman article, additions were made adding categories of Holocaust Denial, Denial of Genocide of Serbs. I know he engaged in the downplay of number of victims whihc he later took back. But did he entirely deny it? Also Today an Antisemitism secrion was added repeating what was in the Historian section talking about his book. Seems redundant and a bit much. I removed it but what are your thought? OyMosby (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Also are these sources RS?

http://www.krajinaforce.com/dokumenti/rat_u_hrvatskoj_iz_pera_obavjestajca.pdf</ref> In 1991, Tuđman said he was happy that he was not married to a Serb or a Jew.^[1]

The vreme obit is by the late and renowned investigative reporter Miloš Vasić, and I would say it is reliable, even if quite critical of Tudjman, Vasić was no friend of any of the Balkan strongmen of the 90s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I also cannot find the claims in the sources.

In the the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia's trial against Ivan Čermak, Tuđman is cited as one of the organizers of the Serb deportations from Krajina.^[2]

This isn't useable, an indictment is an allegation/accusation, the facts of the case are in the summary/judgement. Cermak was acquitted, but I haven't looked to see what the judges said about Tudjman's actions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

^[3]

The better summary is ^[4], and while I haven't gone through it in detail, it is my understanding that the ICTY explicitly did not find him responsible for the deportations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

These seem like poor quality edits but given your background on Yugoslav Wars, I wanted to check with you first. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I think I've given you enough above to address this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you PM, but what about the first part of my questions of the repeat info and new antisemitism section? Also I’m intrigued how a remote article that has to be found through the Internet Archive just happened to be found for this quote? And should their be a second source for such an accusation? I had never come across such a blatant quote like that before OyMosby (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for commenting Starship's GAR, your comment speaks to the core of the article's problem very nicely. I think I might be way too biased about the topic, so what critical information about Starship should I add to the article? I hope that your past experiences about me have not gone too bad and I am very sorry that this is what you think about me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi... Since you are an experienced and respectable editor on WP:MILHIST, could you please be so kind to provide your comment on discussion at Talk:Belize Defence Force#RFC on usage of image2 parameter on infobox. Your valuable input is appreciated. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs

Thank you today Jadran (training ship), introduced: "This article is unusual for me, in that it is about a sail training ship, not a warship. AFAIK it is the first sail training ship to come to FAC. Jadran was commissioned in the early 1930s for the Royal Yugoslav Navy, served with the Italians in a training role after she was captured by them in WWII, and was restored to socialist Yugoslavia following the war. She remained in Yugoslav hands until the wars in the 90s, and is now part of the Montenegrin Navy. Her ownership remains disputed between Croatia and Montenegro."! - I had 5 items on the Main page yesterday (4 pictured), too many deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Gerda! Five items? You are a machine! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

no, just too many deaths - The TFA, Bach's cantata No. 1 was developed over a long time (DYK 2016), could appear only on 25 March, and became FA 26 March last year, sigh ... - The DYK was mostly written by someone else, I only added ce and refs and a few bits of content, - which leaves the dead, but those too were done in collaboration. - I was quite touched by music: a combination of the beginning of the cantata theme and of Prayer for Ukraine, simultaneously! (on my talk, just received) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class cross
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao, Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, Uskok-class torpedo boat, Jadran (training ship), and Tom Eastick. Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Vami! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Just saw it! Congrats on that, I'm happy I was part of that article's process :) Hope you enjoy your weekend. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks A. C., I appreciate your contribution! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 27 March 2022 (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 review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Any chance you'd be able to help on an FAC article review prior to submission for Texas A&M University. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi PM. I had made some edits recently to the article Operation Storm and was hoping you could take a look at my edits to see if they seem alright. If you have any critiques, please let me know. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

April songs

Thank you today for 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), introduced (in 2018): "During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava river. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April." - "ours" (2012) is still on the same page (and my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Uroš Drenović, in collaboration, and introduced: "Drenović (pronounced Drenovich) was a Bosnian Serb Chetnik leader during World War II. He started off as part of the general rebellion against the extreme nationalist Ustaše and their genocidal policies against the Serbs, but soon turned against the Communist-led Yugoslav Partisans who wanted to fight the Axis occupiers. He despised Muslims and Croats, and as a Chetnik he collaborated with first the Ustaše, then the Italians and the Germans. Aged 33, he was killed in an Allied bombing raid on Banja Luka in May 1944. Despite his extensive collaboration with the Axis Powers during the war, a street in Banja Luka is named after him, and within the Serb entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the actions of his Chetniks are celebrated and equated with those of the Partisans."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 27 April 2022 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

WP:ISBNs shows various acceptable ISBN presentations. Some are hyphenated fully, some have 1 hyphen, one as no hyphens. In all cases the templated ISBNs link to Book Sources. (BTW, WorldCat does not hyphenate ISBNs) Your edit reverted some of the corrections (such as listing London alone as a place). Also you reverted a spaced endash correction. (I'll fix these minor items.) Troutingly yours, – S. Rich (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So why is your interpretation preferable to mine? Or your interpretation of the location field preferable to mine? If someone deserves a trout slapping it is someone who changes something when there are multiple acceptable approaches on WP, but they like it a particular way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi PM, how have you been? Since when the last semi-protection expired on March 30, the Skanderbeg article has been vandalized a good amount of times. The article was semi-protected every year in the past, and it seems that is again needs semi-protection to prevent IPs and "new editors" from causing damage. Can you take a look at it and put semi-protection if you agree with my observation? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi peace maker You edited my post about unverified war crimes. Do you have any legal proof or just heresay from Croatian and Muslim fighting with the nazis??Miksyd (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

read the article, the war crimes committed by the Chetniks are well sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thanks for this edit to the blurb. i had spent more time than i would care to admit trying to find a proper rewording, and had still felt that what i eventually went with could still be improved, but was not sure how. your choice of words was much better than mine. dying (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dying! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

May songs

Thank you today for Battle of Vrbanja Bridge, "about a small-scale skirmish between French UN peacekeepers and Bosnian Serb forces in Sarajevo in May 1995 in the middle of the UN hostage crisis. I usually steer away from Bosnian War articles because I am probably too close, having served there in 95-96 with the Brits, but this one, being French, seems at arm's length from my experience, although we did discuss it during pre-deployment training as it occurred just before we got there. Notably, the young captain that led the French assault is currently the French Chief of Defence Staff."! - Own experience: I have a soprano on the same page who impressed me on stage. There are also two in the Recent deaths section as I write this, but without previous knowledge, just that I - knowing their language - feel called when people die and their articles need work.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

When you move a page, you have to fix incoming links and redirects. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the enormous amount of work you do behind the scenes at the Military History Project. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gog. I haven't exactly been very active in the recent past, but hope to get back to it now things are sorted off-Wiki. I appreciated the leadership role you have been taking this term keeping things shipshape. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker67

Would you be able to reassess the following article for WP:MILHIST? This is the article: Frederick Francis of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Adamdaley (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. Adamdaley (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, PM. Would you be interested in helping get Vjekoslav Luburić to eventual FA status as part of BORA? I didn't nominate it when I expanded the article some years back because I don't have access to all the sources that may be required, but I figured you might help in this regard. Let me know if you have the time and energy, and hopefully we can engage in another fruitful collaboration. Even if you're busy with other projects, I would still appreciate your feedback as you have quite a bit of experience in this topic area. Cheers, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I certainly haven't spent as much time as I would like on Ustasha biographies. I'll start looking at what I have and at the current article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, PM. Regarding this remark. [1] Care to point me to a non-Balkan academic source which describes these events and that 5,400 people were killed during them? It shouldn't be difficult to find since these mass killings would surely have been one of the largest in WWII Yugoslavia.

This passage isn't referring to the February 1943 killings in Pljevlja, Foča and Čajniče, which are in eastern Bosnia and northwestern Montenegro, and which are amply documented. It is referring to the alleged killing of 5,400 Albanians (not Bosniaks) in May 1943, which is incidentally the month Đurišić was arrested by the Germans and deported to Ukraine. Indeed, none of the academic sources we've used to source WW2 articles make mention of killings of this scale in Bihor in May 1943. Neither does our Đurišić article. The source which is currently used to back this assertion attributes the claim to a report by Stavro Skëndi, who during World War II fought with the collaborationist Balli Kombëtar and later emigrated to the US and became a professor. Thanks in advance. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2022 (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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Hello Peacemaker67, Mick Jagger has been nominated for Featured Article status. Would you be able to perform an image review? It can be found here. I am reaching out as you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paint It Black/archive1. I hope that you have a great weekend! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The image review has been completed, but I would still welcome comment/your input. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

Someone you previously had a dispute with is going to my account and undoing all my edits, I try to use the talk page but he dismisses everything I say and continues to delete all my posts, what should I do to fix this? Bobisland (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: Based on this exchange, I believe that there is a misunderstanding on your part regarding what are reliable sources. When Amigao reverted your edits adding the Russia Today link to that page with the edit summary "deprecated and redundant", the "deprecated" part was because Russia Today is not considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community (see here). Reliable sources are required for any information added to Wikipedia and RT is a deprecated ("banned"/"generally prohibited") source. The above link also contains a list of a decent number of blacklisted, deprecated, unreliable, questionable, and reliable sources and is probably worth a perusal. If there are different instances, please do advise and give an example or two and let's see if we can sort this out. I hope that this helped to answer your question. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What The Sand Doctor said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought people were able to use deprecated links as long as they’re primary sources? Bobisland (talk)

And that deprecated links aren’t blacklisted ones Bobisland (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you think that? Can you send me a link to a WP policy page that says that? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes go to the deprecated links wiki page and scroll down to the “Acceptable uses of deprecated sources” tab, this shortcut might work but I don’t know shortcut1=WP:DEPS

WP:DEPS

If these don’t work then try this Wikipedia:Deprecated sources Bobisland (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The DEPS page says “The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.” what is the demonstrated need? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

At the time I wanted to use RT it was because the Syrian president gave an exclusive interview to their media and I wanted to reference what he said in the Collaboration with the Islamic State page Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi PM, could you take a look at the Foibe massacres edits and Talk page discussion? Because comments like this and Edits like this and edits like this seem like tit-for-tat WP:POINT reaction edits. I just want and admin to look over this in case I may be misinterpreting another editor as I am heavily confused. OyMosby (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 24 July 2022 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

Hello. I'm writing to you because you are the lead coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and I believe you have enough experience in participating there. Is there any consensus among the majority of the community about the current restrictive guidelines regarding this issue (what can be included in this parameter) or no? I've seen only some separate discussions in archives about specific topics but haven't seen any comprehensive discussions and I can't track the evolution of this concept (because it seems like it's a recent development). The change in WP:MILMOS guideline was made by a single user...
And I want to understand the general logic. As I see from WP:INFOBOX its purpose is to summarize information from the article. In other words, to transform a lot of information from several paragraphs in corresponding sections into several words that reflect what is written in that paragraphs. And, of course, this information should in its turn reflect what the reliable sources say. So to put it short: RS -> information -> summary of information in the infobox.
I believe you would agree with me that this specific nature and purpose of infoboxes produced lots of readers who come to Wikipedia specifically for such a summary. In our case — to see how this or that military conflict or battle finished. And when the infobox doesn't contain the summary or refers to the main article ("see X section"), it loses its purpose. And here is where I seem not to understand something.
To say honestly, from a reader's perspective what is now doesn't make any sense. Summarizing the main text is not restricted to any specific term, especially considering the complex nature of the majority of military conflicts regarding the outcome. Yes, finding an established historical and/or academic consensus may be sometimes difficult, but generally possible, as in other fields (there will always be those who would disagree and have their own opinion). If it's possible to find it (and put into the infobox!) regarding dates of start and end of the conflict, belligerents and casualties, what's the problem with result?
Again, the complex nature of conflicts means that the outcome of these conflicts can also be complex. Besides victories, there can be "draw", "stalemate", "status quo ante bellum", "withdrawal", "tactical victory but strategic loss" (or vice versa) etc. And victories themselves can be "pyrrhic", "partial", "tactical" (without strategic loss, just a minor battle), "decisive" etc. (And yes, sometimes "inconclusive" is also appropriate). What's the problem with any of these, if WP:NOR forbids any kind of speculation by Wikipedians themselves? If there is no established view among specialists, yes, "inconclusive" may go, but if there are RS for these terms or they clearly summarize the information from the article in the corresponding section, what's the problem? Also, no guideline forbids the presence of additional consequences of the conflict/battle (it may contain several lines — but one of the users is working on that... so maybe some consensus exists here as well?); and "X victory" can also have different meanings or be non-specific... I mean, the common argument "infoboxes are not to reflect nuances" doesn't fit here, because 2-3 additional words only specify the exact outcome (you don't need to explain in the infobox why the victory is only tactical). And only if a reader is not satisfied with the summary, he/she can go to the main article and read in details what these terms mean in this particular case. Anyway, any of the above is better than "inconclusive" (except for some minor cases) or (especially) "see X section". The latter can only mean reluctance or inability of editors to summarize, to find RS or to resolve disagreements.
One of the reason why I'm writing this to you is because recently several users have been rushing through a lot of articles about conflicts merely to bring them in accordance with restrictive guidelines, and this can be harmful, because in some cases it may be not justified. So I was considering starting a discussion in the military project about some changings or exceptions but I decided to contact you first. Maybe it will be unnecessary or redundant after our discussions. And also I am frustrated with how inconsistently or even arbitrarily users apply these guidelines in practice. Sometimes even "allowed" terms aren't being accepted because users don't like them in a particular case. On the other side, exceptions do exist and are even being "adopted"; thus, "partial Jordanian victory" was accepted in 1948 Arab-Israeli War after the discussion in the military project. The "forbidden" (in wiki-slang "deprecated") terms are also being used widely, and even the abovementioned rushing users haven't touch them [yet]. For example: Suez Crisis — "political victory"; War of 1812 — "draw"; 2006 Lebanon War — "stalemate"; Iran-Iraq War — "status quo ante bellum"; 1982 Lebanon War — "tactical victory but strategic failure"; War of Attrition, Battle of Karameh — "both sides claim victory"; and many-many more. Not to mention more minor things, such as completely non-standard Battle of Bint Jbeil — "failed to conquer the town". And actually I can't say that these terms aren't appropriate here or that changing of all of these to "see X section" would improve these articles. Rather it shows that this artificial narrowing doesn't make much sense...
This is how I see it. Of course, I may not know something, may not know some previous agreements and I may be wrong. That's why I'm writing this to you. And also please tell me whether it makes sense to start a discussion in the military project or it will inevitably fail (because the majority of users prefer status quo). Thank you for your reply in advance. Oloddin (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

G'day Oloddin. I broadly agree, but as always there are competing interests here. The first is that the infobox isn't the place to communicate complexity, and so the guidance is intended to dissuade editors from attempting to do so, especially without excellent sourcing supporting the listed result. My view is that the current guidance is far too prescriptive and was based on a weak consensus, and should be rewritten. The reason I consider it needs to be rewritten is that in some (not all) cases, the academic consensus on the result of a given battle or campaign is clear. In those cases, I suggest the wording used in the majority of academic sources, including any adjective, should be used in the infobox (with footnotes). In such situations, if "pyrrhic victory" or "decisive defeat" etc is what the academic consensus is, then Wikipedia should use that. However, where there are diverging views in the academic literature, then it would be inappropriate to use the view of the result of some, and not reflect other widely-held views. This is why in circumstances where there is no academic consensus, "See Aftermath section" is often the best thing to put in the infobox. No-one should be putting anything complex in an infobox without good quality and well-cited information in the body of the article on which the result in the infobox is based. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

But shouldn't the infobox summarize what this section tells? This is the main, actually the only purpose of the infobox. An editor goes to this section, sees what is written there (with RS of course), transforms this into two or three words and puts them into the infobox. It should be possible in the vast majority of cases, given that the current guidance says that "result" parameter is for immediate [military] result and not for the long-term outcome and consequences.

This wording is usually used not when there is no academic consensus (in this case the parameter is better to be omitted at all), but when the outcome (for which academic consensus does exist) may seem to some users as more complex than the very strict "X victory"; in some cases even if immediate result is clear, but long-term is not. I can understand why there are so many proponents of this "see X" — it is the easiest that one can put in the infobox; no need for analysis, nothing. But how "see X" can be better than, well, anything more descriptive, is beyond me.

Anyway, how do you think, does it make sense to start this discussion in the project or it will be a dead-end? As I see, editors here are very reluctant (to say the least) to step away from what they find comfortable to them and listen to some different arguments, and it seems like the discussion will be futile. But maybe if a wide range of editors would participate (with different positions), maybe a normal discussion will be possible? I don't know... Oloddin (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

Hello. I'm writing to you because you are the lead coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and I believe you have enough experience in participating there. Is there any consensus among the majority of the community about the current restrictive guidelines regarding this issue (what can be included in this parameter) or no? I've seen only some separate discussions in archives about specific topics but haven't seen any comprehensive discussions and I can't track the evolution of this concept (because it seems like it's a recent development). The change in WP:MILMOS guideline was made by a single user...
And I want to understand the general logic. As I see from WP:INFOBOX its purpose is to summarize information from the article. In other words, to transform a lot of information from several paragraphs in corresponding sections into several words that reflect what is written in that paragraphs. And, of course, this information should in its turn reflect what the reliable sources say. So to put it short: RS -> information -> summary of information in the infobox.
I believe you would agree with me that this specific nature and purpose of infoboxes produced lots of readers who come to Wikipedia specifically for such a summary. In our case — to see how this or that military conflict or battle finished. And when the infobox doesn't contain the summary or refers to the main article ("see X section"), it loses its purpose. And here is where I seem not to understand something.
To say honestly, from a reader's perspective what is now doesn't make any sense. Summarizing the main text is not restricted to any specific term, especially considering the complex nature of the majority of military conflicts regarding the outcome. Yes, finding an established historical and/or academic consensus may be sometimes difficult, but generally possible, as in other fields (there will always be those who would disagree and have their own opinion). If it's possible to find it (and put into the infobox!) regarding dates of start and end of the conflict, belligerents and casualties, what's the problem with result?
Again, the complex nature of conflicts means that the outcome of these conflicts can also be complex. Besides victories, there can be "draw", "stalemate", "status quo ante bellum", "withdrawal", "tactical victory but strategic loss" (or vice versa) etc. And victories themselves can be "pyrrhic", "partial", "tactical" (without strategic loss, just a minor battle), "decisive" etc. (And yes, sometimes "inconclusive" is also appropriate). What's the problem with any of these, if WP:NOR forbids any kind of speculation by Wikipedians themselves? If there is no established view among specialists, yes, "inconclusive" may go, but if there are RS for these terms or they clearly summarize the information from the article in the corresponding section, what's the problem? Also, no guideline forbids the presence of additional consequences of the conflict/battle (it may contain several lines — but one of the users is working on that... so maybe some consensus exists here as well?); and "X victory" can also have different meanings or be non-specific... I mean, the common argument "infoboxes are not to reflect nuances" doesn't fit here, because 2-3 additional words only specify the exact outcome (you don't need to explain in the infobox why the victory is only tactical). And only if a reader is not satisfied with the summary, he/she can go to the main article and read in details what these terms mean in this particular case. Anyway, any of the above is better than "inconclusive" (except for some minor cases) or (especially) "see X section". The latter can only mean reluctance or inability of editors to summarize, to find RS or to resolve disagreements.
One of the reason why I'm writing this to you is because recently several users have been rushing through a lot of articles about conflicts merely to bring them in accordance with restrictive guidelines, and this can be harmful, because in some cases it may be not justified. So I was considering starting a discussion in the military project about some changings or exceptions but I decided to contact you first. Maybe it will be unnecessary or redundant after our discussions. And also I am frustrated with how inconsistently or even arbitrarily users apply these guidelines in practice. Sometimes even "allowed" terms aren't being accepted because users don't like them in a particular case. On the other side, exceptions do exist and are even being "adopted"; thus, "partial Jordanian victory" was accepted in 1948 Arab-Israeli War after the discussion in the military project. The "forbidden" (in wiki-slang "deprecated") terms are also being used widely, and even the abovementioned rushing users haven't touch them [yet]. For example: Suez Crisis — "political victory"; War of 1812 — "draw"; 2006 Lebanon War — "stalemate"; Iran-Iraq War — "status quo ante bellum"; 1982 Lebanon War — "tactical victory but strategic failure"; War of Attrition, Battle of Karameh — "both sides claim victory"; and many-many more. Not to mention more minor things, such as completely non-standard Battle of Bint Jbeil — "failed to conquer the town". And actually I can't say that these terms aren't appropriate here or that changing of all of these to "see X section" would improve these articles. Rather it shows that this artificial narrowing doesn't make much sense...
This is how I see it. Of course, I may not know something, may not know some previous agreements and I may be wrong. That's why I'm writing this to you. And also please tell me whether it makes sense to start a discussion in the military project or it will inevitably fail (because the majority of users prefer status quo). Thank you for your reply in advance. Oloddin (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

G'day Oloddin. I broadly agree, but as always there are competing interests here. The first is that the infobox isn't the place to communicate complexity, and so the guidance is intended to dissuade editors from attempting to do so, especially without excellent sourcing supporting the listed result. My view is that the current guidance is far too prescriptive and was based on a weak consensus, and should be rewritten. The reason I consider it needs to be rewritten is that in some (not all) cases, the academic consensus on the result of a given battle or campaign is clear. In those cases, I suggest the wording used in the majority of academic sources, including any adjective, should be used in the infobox (with footnotes). In such situations, if "pyrrhic victory" or "decisive defeat" etc is what the academic consensus is, then Wikipedia should use that. However, where there are diverging views in the academic literature, then it would be inappropriate to use the view of the result of some, and not reflect other widely-held views. This is why in circumstances where there is no academic consensus, "See Aftermath section" is often the best thing to put in the infobox. No-one should be putting anything complex in an infobox without good quality and well-cited information in the body of the article on which the result in the infobox is based. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

But shouldn't the infobox summarize what this section tells? This is the main, actually the only purpose of the infobox. An editor goes to this section, sees what is written there (with RS of course), transforms this into two or three words and puts them into the infobox. It should be possible in the vast majority of cases, given that the current guidance says that "result" parameter is for immediate [military] result and not for the long-term outcome and consequences.

This wording is usually used not when there is no academic consensus (in this case the parameter is better to be omitted at all), but when the outcome (for which academic consensus does exist) may seem to some users as more complex than the very strict "X victory"; in some cases even if immediate result is clear, but long-term is not. I can understand why there are so many proponents of this "see X" — it is the easiest that one can put in the infobox; no need for analysis, nothing. But how "see X" can be better than, well, anything more descriptive, is beyond me.

Anyway, how do you think, does it make sense to start this discussion in the project or it will be a dead-end? As I see, editors here are very reluctant (to say the least) to step away from what they find comfortable to them and listen to some different arguments, and it seems like the discussion will be futile. But maybe if a wide range of editors would participate (with different positions), maybe a normal discussion will be possible? I don't know... Oloddin (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 September 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi -- I just started a GA review of Zdravko Ponoš, and as I have no ability to evaluate Serbian sources, I wondered if you have the language skills and time to take a quick look? No problem if you're busy, of course; and not to do a full source review, just to run your eye down the citations and let me know if anything jumps out at you as unreliable, or something I should look into further. I can get a fair way with Google Translate but if you have a moment that would be very helpful. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 18 August 2022 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

Saw that you have decided not to run for reelection in the MilHist coord tranche. You've done great work on the project and I hope you stick around on Wikipedia a while longer, real life permitting. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

G'day Indy, thanks. I think I've had a good run as a coord (and lead coord), and it's time for others to take up the running. There is plenty of talent and experience in the current coord pool, and I feel like now is a good time for me to step back, concentrate on content and reviewing again, and make time for the RW as well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not received any Military History Reviewers' Awards since the last quarter of 2021, even tho I've been reasonable active during the first two quarters of 2022. Pendright (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pendright! That's odd. Have any of them been A-Class reviews? Because doing at least one is the entry criteria. Let me know. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Greetings PM - Fewer than I thought, but I'm surlprised that they were all overlooked. Anyway, thanks for your help.

• (FAR) 1/8/22 Battle of St. Charles
• (FAR) 2/3/22 The Shadow (magazine)
• (FAR) 3/31/22 Tom Eastick
• (FAR) 6/1/22 Battle of Raymond Pendright (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Momčilo Đujić article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 1, 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 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 1, 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I Haven't heard from you about my Reviewer Awards problem, so I thoughht I'd Ping you and check. If you are unable to help further, perhaps you could refer me to someone else who can. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, i had a question regarding this article. is "Štiglič" a proper way to write the lieutenant commander's name in latin script? i think the names "Štiglic" ("Штиглиц") and "Štiglić" ("Штиглић") are fairly common, although the name "Štiglič" ("Штиглич") seemed rather unusual to me. i had wondered whether the lieutenant commander was from an area where "-ič" was a common name ending. however, i know "-ič" is commonly used in slovenia, and both slovenians listed in wikipedia's article on the surname use the spelling "Štiglic".

of course, the lieutenant commander could have simply spelt the name unusually. however, a google search for "Станислав Штиглич" gave me no results, and i think this featured article may be the only instance of "Štiglič" currently on en wikipedia, based on this search, so i thought i might ask you about it. i know this is an incredibly trivial point to raise, so i apologize for that, but for some reason, this issue has been nagging me for days. dying (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

G'day dying, thanks for the enquiry. Štiglič is the spelling in the source with those diacritics, and the author of the book is of Yugoslav background, so you'd hope he would know. It probably is Slovenian, there were plenty of Slovenes in the Yugoslav navy. The Slovenian travel website uses the same spelling/diacritics. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

oh, wow, that's pretty interesting. will mentally file that away as an acceptable spelling. many thanks for rechecking your source for me! dying (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

September songs

Thank you today for Uskok-class torpedo boat, "about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war. This article forms part of the featured topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards 100% featured."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! You are a gem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just an admirer! Today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Nimmo 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Robert Nimmo 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:Robert Nimmo for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Robert Nimmo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Nimmo 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

October songs

Thank you today for Momčilo Đujić, about "the fourth WWII Chetnik leader I've brought to FAC, and the first one who was also a priest. A member of the interwar Chetnik Association, which largely functioned as a paramilitary arm of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, Đujić escaped the initial onslaught of the Ustaše after the Axis invasion of the country and the establishment of the so-called Independent State of Croatia, but returned during the general uprising to take charge of a large proportion of the Chetniks in the Dalmatian hinterland. He collaborated extensively with the Italians and then the Germans against the communist-led Partisans, and withdrew west alongside the Germans at the end of the war, surrendering to the western Allies. He was able to emigrate to the US, where he lived among the diaspora. He played a bit supporting part during the Yugoslav Wars and died in 1999." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for For long and dedicated service to the project, including 4 terms as lead coordinator. Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Congrats PM, and thanks for your service as a co-ord. No doubt we will still see you around the traps though! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Zawed, great to see you still on the team. I'll be around, just mostly writing and reviewing for now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Is 250,000 indeed the common statistic for number of refugees of Operation Storm in the media as this edit states? I don’t see existing sources or citation says so nor was any new ones added. Sources seem to say 200,000 as common. I didn’t want to undo it yet as I didn’t see anyone else do so. Wanted to check first. Thanks. Hope all is well on your end lately. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I did wonder about that edit; the key is what the sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The editor says they are going by what they see “in the media”. But I would not think that would qualify as RS on its own. I would think it is on them to cite sources for new proposed statistics. OyMosby (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

They added no citations or sources to back up their new edit. Unless you see otherwise, should it be reverted? I see you saw it but didn’t change it back. Did you see citations that back it? Just want to be sure. OyMosby (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2022 (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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

From your current listing at FAC mentors, you are listed for possible interest in military history and political biography articles. For the past several months, I've been editing the president's article for James Madison, who was president during the War with Britain in 1812, and thought to ask you if this would be of sufficient interest for you to look at. After my successful GAN promotion for it, there are now another two positive peer reviews as well. Any interest for you to possibly be a co-nominator or mentor for a FAC nomination for this political biography article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

G'day Ernest, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. Unfortunately, political articles (particularly US ones) are not my forte, and my outside WP commitments mean that I don't have the capacity to take on a mentoring role right now in any case. Good luck with it, certainly an important article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Radoje Pajović 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article Radoje Pajovi? you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Radoje Pajovi? for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article Radoje Pajović 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:Radoje Pajović for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The same user keeps adding back Anti Serb Sentiment despite other editors pointing out that it isn’t a political ideology but prejudice. There appears to be no communication in their diffs. Looks like this time it went unnoticed for a while. Anything that can be done about such behavior? Despite multiple users explaining to them it doesn’t appear to be affective. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, if the Chetnik ideology can be anti-Croat and anti-Muslim, and the Nazi ideology anti Semitic, then the Ustase ideology can be anti-Serb. Effectively, all had racism at the core of their ideology. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

When I checked the ideology section for Nazism, it listed only political aspects. It appeared to keep racial theory as a separate topic. For Chetniks, I didn’t see any ideology listed in the infobox in general. Are they combining both racial and political ideologies in the same category? Obviously I agree Ustashe were anti Serb and Anti Semetic. It was placement within the infobox that seemed off. OyMosby (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Chetnik ideology field in the infobox was out of control, a real battleground area, and bloated, so I moved it all to a full discussion in the body and left a link to the section. Frankly, the Ustase article could do with the same treatment. We follow what the reliable sources say, if they say racism was part of the ideology of a party or organisation, then that is what goes in the article under ideology. Both Tomasevich and Sadkovich state that the Chetniks were anti-Croat and anti-Muslim, and Tomasevich certainly says that the Ustase were anti-Serb and anti-Semitic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don’t disagree. I was talking about political ideology which AB explained in their diff. On the Nazism page it doesn’t list antisemitism under main ideology but racial. I see now what you mean though. Chetnik page infobox redirects to deep in the article. Basically combining political and racial ideologies. I guess we could just do that with the Ustashe article. Would avoid the edit wars that happened in the past as can be seen in the diffs.OyMosby (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2022 (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 review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Is every military biography supposed to be tagged with both the task force of WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military history? -Vipz (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

They sure are. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought they were redundant, other than the fact that the WP Biography can't sort the articles into additional task forces (e.g. WWII, Balkan, etc.). Sorry for removing those articles from the latter WikiProject. -Vipz (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, easily done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cas! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey peacemaker hope all is well. I was going to talk to you about the revert for the page. The reason to why i had removed them came from research over the authors of those sources. As well as that some of the stuff listed in the ideology section were not sourced or not properly sourced. Some of the authors of those sources were very biased (i.e Johnstone, Batakovic) One of the authors of the sources literally has been known to make dubious claims including that the genocide in Bosnia is a farce. Gjondeda (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the article talk page and a consensus about the reliability of the sources achieved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

Hello, you probably noted that I tried to contact you but changed my mind. I would like to ask if you could take a look on Coldtrack and Juicy Oranges edits in Srebrenica Massacre, where they followed me after a dispute at Gazimestan Speech, and are attempting to reinterpret and change few things with only long POV edit-summaries, and no attempt to seek consensus at TP. They use their same POV to edit-war while evading risk of being reported for 3RR. Coldtrack followed me from Gazimestan speech with this edit which I rv as a POV pushing, then Juicy Oranges chipped in with this edit followed with removal of "Main" link template toward Bosnian genocide denial this edit, which obviously bothered him because it refers editors and readers to the GA article on this genocide denialism phenomenon. I rv this again, but JO inserted this "skepticism" again and removed category Bosnian genocide denial again, I reverted only subsection title while not noticing that JO again removed category. Then, Coldtrack again took the turn and inserted "skepticism". I tried once more to remove it as POV pushing without any attempt to reach consensus on TP, and with only long edit-summary justifications, but they inserted it again. I warrned them of WP:ARBEE, and I really contemplated to go and write a report on both of them, including personal attacks by JO at Gazimestan TP (they claim that they amended that post, I haven't read again). I totally understand if you don't wish to engage, and would rather to avoid any participation, but I would certainly appreciate if you do. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you (Peacemaker67) are being asked to become involved from a admin perspective or from that of one who edits (as I see) extensively in Balkans-related articles. First of all, there is no POV pushing from me on Srebrenica massacre. There is a section at the bottom that deals with denialism but it also deals with sceptisism. The page history shows that the section was titled "Denialism and sceptisim" for a fair amount of time before this brazen edit coming up four years ago. I see also that the list was longer at the time, or certainly contained entries that came to be removed. I haven't inspected the history that closely to know why some of the items were removed; were the sources "unreliable"? Were they dead links? I dont know. All I can say here is that at present, there are two entries on the list that do not deny the massacre but decline to swallow the mainstream narrative for other technical reasons, these being Schabas and Zuroff no less. In this summary[2], I believe the field is open for Sastana if he would like to fork the the section further and have one subsection specifically for "denial" and another for "alternative views" or "sceptisism" or something to that effect. Essentially this could be a can of worms because of the broad range of responses to the claim. Yes there are those to deny it outright, while others dispute the figure (so they don't deny the killings, just the total). Even then, it is purely reported that the odd person "denies" and says nothing more in the source as to why he denies it. My original preference was sceptisim by itself as I genuinely thought that this would serve as a term that covered denialism and more. Yet since JO preferred both and specified that the current text treats them as sperate phenomena, I am happy to go along with it. I don't know if Sastana was complaining about anything else in this thread regarding me. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

PS. I would also like to add that despite parallels, Bosnian genocide denial (a title that does not match its content, but a real phenomenon no less) and "Srebrenica massacre denial" are not one and the same thing. Yet because Srebrenica represents one part of a bigger picture, there is much conflation of the two across numerous articles as I see - and I am relatively novice on Balkans matters. I believe that that Bosnian genocide denial sits perfectly well in the "See also" at Srebrenica massacre and no argument has been posited why it should sit as a main where Srebrenica's alterative positions are presented. As a matter of fact, even "reliable sources" are not above attacking the straw man here. For instance, Marko Hoare on Chomsky[3] accuses him of forgetting about the killing of Muslims elsewhere across Bosnia where AFAIK Chomsky only ever commented on Srebrenica, not on Mostar, nor Sarajevo, nor the war Muslims fought against Croats in Bosnia, nor the Croat v Serb fighting in Bosnia, and nor the Muslim v Muslim against those loyal to Abdic. As such, Hoare in none of his releases addresses the arguments put forward by Chomsky et al over Srebrenica itself (other than the argument from repetition over the UN and international courts which stand challenged by others), but diverts attention to the rest of Bosnia, which again, invites a plethora of responses. So not to digress, all I am saying is that it is not a "POV" that "Bosnian genocide denial" is absolutely fine for a "see also" but is not a WP:CATEGORY of one its its components (ie. Srebrenica massacre). I hope this clarifies that I am not POV-pushing but striving to keep an article as decent as possible. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Bill Denny (Australian politician), on his birthday, "about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:48, 6 December 2022 (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 review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

I was so pleased to see that you're taking on a rewrite of Ernest Roberts (Australian politician): he's an interesting guy, and you always do such a wonderful job when you take on those articles, fleshing out their military service in ways that I just wouldn't even know where to start.

A couple of early comments I might make (and I hope you don't mind) - more than just founding one organisation, he was fairly significant in the rise of the Port Pirie union movement amidst the industrial unrest of the 1890s in a way that our article doesn't make obvious; The Herald was more left-wing newspaper than "trade union magazine" (it was, essentially, part of an effort by the union movement to challenge the media dominance of the Murdochs of the day) and contributed to his influence in the 00s, and he was a fairly influential figure in the Labor Party before and after the war. (One thing I didn't know, but just discovered because your rewrite got me researching him again was that he played a fairly significant role in Labor's split with David Charleston, who the ADB calls the "first major dissident" of SA Labor.)

If you're ever looking to do another SA soldier/politician one day, his successor in federal parliament, Gunner Yates, was another interesting one, and I'm sure there's much more to be found than the draft I wrote over there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, TDW! My outline plan is to get this to B-class, then start a deep dive into Trove and Labor history with the aim of getting him to FA eventually. I’m thinking this might be a project of getting a few of the state pollies who were also veterans to GA-Class. The Parliament is apparently working on a project to recognise pollies with war service (like Denny and Blackburn), might be some interesting stuff to come out of that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi PM, if you would like Pavle Đurišić to be considered for TFA in February, you need to think about nominating it. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Thank you today for Tom Eastick, "a part-time Militia officer in the interwar period who commanded an Australian artillery regiment at the Battles of El Alamein in 1942 then commanded the artillery of Australian divisions in New Guinea and then Borneo in 1943–1945. He took the Japanese surrender in Sarawak, and was military governor there after the war ended. He was prominent in ex-service organisations in South Australia, and was knighted in 1970 for his volunteer work."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! 👍🏻 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ernest Roberts (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 Mike Christie, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The article Ernest Roberts (Australian politician) 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:Ernest Roberts (Australian politician) and Talk:Ernest Roberts (Australian politician)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The article Ernest Roberts (Australian politician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ernest Roberts (Australian politician) for comments about the article, and Talk:Ernest Roberts (Australian politician)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60, right back at you! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me where Thomashevitsh said about the flag? Savasampion (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't Tomasevich, it was Pavlovich, Stevan. (2021) Hitler's New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia, p. 58. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bruxton! Right back at you! 👍🏻 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. I've done a GA review of Jack Critchley - I've often been hesitant to do formal reviews because I hadn't wrapped my head around the exact formal criteria, but figured it out here. Hope it hasn't thrown too many obstacles in the way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I know that it can be a bit daunting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jack Critchley 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of The Drover's Wife -- The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 18:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 18:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 18:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, question for you about the subject of your DYK hook - do you know why Roberts and Kingston had a falling out over franchise reform, such that he'd assist in defeating Kingston's government? It's a fairly significant vote historically, and it's absolutely not obvious why they'd have a dispute on that vote or whether Kingston and Labor had a split or whether Labor split internally.

I thought I'd try and answer my own question and maybe add a couple of sentences of additional context, but stumbled across this (and a bunch of other articles) suggesting that a) Labor did very much split, and b) when criticised, Roberts claimed he was not, in fact, a member of the parliamentary Labor Party at the time. He then seems to have ratted on Solomon a few days later and again switched sides to support Holder. Poynton and Roberts seem to have very much acted against the wishes of the Labor Party in bringing down Kingston, and Roberts alone then switched back in ousting Solomon.

It seems like something that probably warrants mentioning, and I'll get around to doing the deep dive eventually myself but thought I'd draw it to your attention as well since it pertains to the DYK for the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Great point. I've made a start on addressing it, in that the stated motive of bringing down Kingston was concern that he would ask the governor to dissolve parliament and call a fresh election, with uncertain consequences. It might take a while to unpick Roberts' argument and the counter-argument put by the editor of The Herald, but I'll take a close look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 February 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 13, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker67, let me use this occasion to wish you a happy New Year! Anyway, I want to request a rollback of all latest "Religion in [X]" top edits from Special:Contributions/110.34.27.228. They've been adding redundant short description tags, alongside intentional WP:SDNONE tags. Most other additions seem okay enough. Anyway, I also have a relevant question: what's the most appropriate place for requesting rollbacks? Thanks in advance. -Vipz (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

G'day Vipz, have a read of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. What you are describing doesn't seem to be covered, esp where edits are apparently being done in good faith. If you need admin attention for egregious stuff you can't handle yourself, the best place is the "Recently Active Admins" link on WP:ANI, which will take you to a list of recently active admins who might help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course these edits are being done in good faith, but there's quite a lot of them to go through. I see a lot of them have already been reverted. Nonetheless, I suppose you're correct. Thanks for informing me. -Vipz (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

		The Silver Wiki
		Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the Military Historian of the Year by a popular vote of your WikiProject Military history peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. As the lead coordinator, it is my pleasure to present the esteemed Silver Wiki. Please accept this token of our gratitude and appreciation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

G’day PM. How you are doing well. Wanted to inquire with you in regards to the admin arbitration situation that came from a case from a year ago dealing with Balkan related articles and the potential locking of them due to IP edit wars. Would John Malkovich fall under that? Multiple IPs have pushed pov edits about his ethnic background. Ignoring multiple sources stating his paternal Croatian ancestry and insisting a conflicting tabloid sources stating has paternal side is Serbian. I request the page be temporarily locked but the space between these IP disruptions were too great for admins to lock. However policing of the page is lackjng and edits go for periods unnoticed. It’s a high profile figure and page. Should it be locked from IP edits? These tend to be IP throw aways that keep changing. 1 , 2 and 3. Cheers. OyMosby (talk)< OyMosby (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2023 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Thank you today for Pavle Đurišić, written in 2012 in collaboration! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I'm re-treading them now! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. If you look at the ledes of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin, or any other, the public view of the subject is usually mentioned at the end even if the stats on the subject's war crime has already been mentioned on the top. StarkReport (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead is currently balanced, mentioning all significant aspects of his bio, including his collaboration, war crimes, and military prowess, and summarising the major events of his life. Tacking what you did on the end just appears to be a way of countering the statement about his military prowess. It isn't necessary or helpful to the reader. It was also inaccurate. If it is considered desirable to include the quantum of people killed by his troops earlier in the lead where the massacres are mentioned, then that is where the numbers should be inserted. However, the words you used are inaccurate. I am very familiar with Tomasevich and he does not condemn the man, he just states the facts of what he did. That sort of twisting of sources is highly undesirable. Given the article is Featured, that citations are not needed in the lead when the material is cited reliably in the body, and that you have been reverted, the appropriate course of action for you is to suggest an edit on the talk page and we can discuss it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that Tomasevich is denouncing the man, the sources that I gave, were the views of The Association of War Veterans of the National Liberation Army (SUBNOR) as well as The Muslim Association of Montenegro which is given in the Commemoration controversy section. And they have condemned him as a war criminal. I am just mentioning that essential piece of info on the lead just as it is on other Wiki's articles. The line about Đurišić being a very able Chetnik leader is also mentioned in the Aftermath section, so it's also being repeated on the top. You want to keep a particular view of him and remove the other one? StarkReport (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. All significant aspects of the man are in the article already. But please read the policies, like MOS:LEAD. It isn't being "repeated". If everything in the body of the article is cited reliably, there is no need to cite it in the lead. The lead is not a "lede", it is a summary of the article. That is why the assessment of his military prowess by Tomasevich and Pavlowitch appears twice, once in the body where it is cited, and once in the lead as part of the summary of the significant aspects of the man's bio. You actually were saying that Tomasevich was denouncing him. You placed a citation to Tomasevich's 1975 book immediately after the sentence, which indicated that his work supported the statement that he had been denounced. I've checked it, it doesn't, it just describes the massacres, and therefore fails verification. The other sources you mentioned are hardly neutral parties, unlike Tomasevich and Pavlowitch, and I would not use their condemnations in the lead. The simple facts of his troops massacring over 10,000 people speaks for itself without gratuitous mention of condemnation from people who would naturally condemn him, as it was their people who were massacred. Just as I would not add in some biased defence of his actions from a modern Chetnik group. Having said all that, I have no problem with adding reliably sourced numbers of victims into the lead at the appropriate point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Any of those sources [4][5][6] ? Not necessarily on the lead, just in general, would they work? StarkReport (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, general Al Jazeera is considered ok AFAIK, but IRI seems a bit dubious, and TRT is government-controlled state media in Turkey. It would probably good to use Al Jazeera to expand on the final para of the Commemoration controversy section regarding the continued moves to commemorate Đurišić. Do you want to suggest a sentence we could add, based on the Al Jazeera article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've added some numbers to the relevant bit of the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think that works. StarkReport (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw that you reverted the name change that I made on the article Military history of the Croats. What would you like to discuss about that, and why do you think it would be controversial?

Franjo Tahy (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

discuss it on the article talk page where everyone who watches the page can see it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

Hi PM. Wanted to inquire as it has been a long standing part of the article and sourced that Chetnik atrocities are labeled “genocide” by historians. It was recently downgraded on the 27nth by a new user to “war crimes” and you can still see the original paragraph versions in the intro that were long standing for years, and you recently reverted to war crimes again stating it would be against sources to state otherwise? Not sure if you saw the edit activity on the 27th for the page that day. The IP restored the standing version reverting as you said “Changing wording of sourced material without additional citations” originally done by the new editor. If you check, user Stara Marusya originaly came in on the 27nth and changed the wording of material without adding any sources. They introduced new terms or changed wording initially without new citations if you double check. They even added a whole new paragraph to the intro unsourced. Again I assume you maybe confused the IP and the editor. Understandable as IPs are usual suspects of problematic edits. One can check the intro version before their edit and see by even looking prior to the 27th. I’m confused as it was long standing as genocide and in the past you supported that version. Is it no longer labeled as such? Also does it male sense to remove the summary from the intro? Wasn’t sure if you were aware of that either given so much going on. Sorry for the long post, wanted make sure I was clear with all the details. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, I was on a 3-week vacation and couldn't get this posted sooner. Re: Special:Diff/1138312794, the infobox could be contained within one line for all reader cares, it has no effect on appearance, indeed. This alignment is there for convenience of editors. Have a good day! -Vipz (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2023 (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 review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Hi PM. You have a couple of articles at TFA Potentials that could do with nominating at TFA Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the 27th Infantry Division Savska article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 10, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! You are a gem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi PM. I don’t have the book and only have limited preview access through google. Would you be able to verify if this sentence added in 2018 is from the citation 18 reference? I was unable to located it. The sentence is “However, its day-to-day administration was comprised almost exclusively of Croatians, including monks and nuns, under the leadership of the Ustaše.”, which I don’t doubt is true. NDH had large autonomy and was Croatian centric. But instead of just moving [18] to the end of the sentence, wanted to verify. At first I confused it with another parr of the book but then realized it isn’t in there from what I searched. Being a long standing addition, didn’t want to remove it either with giving opportunity to find suitable citation. Also should it be “Croatians” or “Croats”? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not only is that material not from that citation, but the material is in the wrong place, because the para is about the NDH, not the camp. My view is it should be moved at the very least. Frankly, on articles such as this, all uncited material should be deleted as soon as it is added. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Yugoslav destroyer Beograd article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 28, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Was wondering if you'd be aware of any Australian editors who would be able to opine at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Movement (Australia)/archive1 if there's unrepresented sourcing, or if there's realistically just Jaensch to work with. I'm starting to suspect that the other sourcing that I thought existed was really about one of the many similarly-named Australian political parties and not that one. Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker! I noticed you're listed on the list of FAC mentors and you specified your interest in military history. Last year I did a lot of work on the Nestor Makhno article, getting it peer reviewed and bringing it up to GA rating. Now it's been enough time that I'm confident on submitting this for Featured Article Candidacy, but as this would be my first such submission, I wanted to see if you could give it a look over before I do. Cheers. -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

G'day, could do, except I am pretty much out of commission from today until the 27th of March. Happy to have a look after that though. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye no worries about the timing, I'm in no hurry. Thanks :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker, it has been a while since I've updated you on the SS Skanderbeg logo and on its sources (on the talkpage) but I still haven't gotten a reply from you after I posted about the source of the logo. Soooo? PrincLeka1914 (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

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 review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

Peacemaker67, i had a question regarding this article and the associated blurb. why is "Savska" italicized in the title of the article? i admittedly couldn't find anything addressing this at wp:milmos#unitname. i had previously assumed that, unless there was specific guidance calling for italics to be used for the names of infantry divisions, the proper name of the unit would not be italicized, as noted in the proper name exception of mos:foreignitalic. i couldn't find many other articles on numbered military units with titles that deal with the same issue as this one (aside from those that you created, of course), but i did find "112th "Revolutionary Mongolia" Tank Brigade" and "Infantry Regiment 9 Potsdam", neither of which uses italics.

i obviously don't have access to all the sources you cited, but the jna atlas appears to simply call the unit "Savska divizija". this conforms with sl wikipedia's article on the division. sl wikipedia also has a category containing articles on related divisions that are all named similarly. alternatively, this list on sl wikipedia suggests that the english translation should be "27th Infantry Division "Savska"" (or "27th "Savska" Infantry Division"). niehorster presented "Savska" in italics, but the column header in which it is presented has "Designation" in italics, so i am assuming that niehorster used italics to denote that this was the designation of the division, and not necessarily because it is normally written in italics. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

G'day Dying. It's a long story. I wouldn't use any Yugo language WP as a guide on this, because none of them have articles on Royal Yugo divisions with anywhere near the detail or range of reliability of local language sources of the en WP ones. MILMOS isn't any use, and FOREIGNITALIC says, inter alia "Wikipedia uses italics for ... isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". "Savska" is the Serbo-Croatian name of the river that is called "Sava" in English, but in this case it isn't meant as a proper noun which would not be italicised IAW FOREIGNITALIC, but as more of suffixed "honour title" or adjunct to the proper name of the division (27th Infantry Division) to indicate the geographical region from which it was drawn, as the Sava runs along the southern boundary of the area most of the troops were from. This formulation of the title is the same as that used in Battistelli's 2021 book on the German invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia, although he doesn't italicise them, he isn't subject to FOREIGNITALIC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

my story today

Thank you for 27th Infantry Division Savska, "about a largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division that began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force during the April 1941 invasion of that country. Fifth column elements even took over a city before the division completely disintegrated in the face of an overwhelming German armoured assault"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, PM. For Kragujevac massacre, I was thinking of adding a map to the infobox based on File:TerritoryOfTheMilitaryCommanderInSerbiaLocatorMap.png but all my attempts have ended up looking rather terrible. I was wondering if you would mind taking a swing at it. I figured maybe you'd have better luck with the formatting. Cheers, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Thank you today for Yugoslav destroyer Beograd, introduced (in 2020) as "the lead ship of her class of destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the late 1930s. During WWII, she saw action under the Yugoslav, Italian then German flags." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, TFAs aren't supposed to be preemptively semi-protected. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Guidance for administrators. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know Ed. However, this policy is despite the attempts of myself and many others to get pre-emptive semi implemented as a policy for TFAs, because in all of the 70 or so TFAs I've nominated, I don't think one has had an IP make an edit that was part of a valid content dispute (which is what the guideline refers to). They are always vandalism, often egregious. It is WP ideology about being an "encyclopaedia anyone can edit" gone mad IMHO. You only have to look at the vandalism that occurred on this (pretty vanilla ship) article while it was TFA (with semi) to see how nuts the current policy is. When the article is controversial it really goes off. The nominator and a bunch of other editors have to play whack-a-mole all day, and sometimes for at least two or three days as it tails off on the main page. To what end? How does that benefit the encyclopaedia? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I only wanted to let you know in case you didn't know and someone got angry about it. I didn't come here to try to enforce the policy. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Hey again. Just checking in to ask if you're still up to mentor me for bringing the article on Nestor Makhno to FAC? I had a lot on the last month, but I'm available again to work on this if you are. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

G'day Grnrchst, interesting topic. Let me have a read. I'll try to do that over the weekend and get back to you early next week. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look into it? -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I opened a discussion. Please participated in discussion at talk page Footwiks (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I’ve done that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Croatian Partisans and the above WIP subpage of yours had a red link pointing to Supreme Staff of the Yugoslav Partisans. "Staff" is actually a correct literal translation for "štab" found in the native name of Supreme Headquarters (Yugoslav Partisans), which is why I made the former a redirect to latter. "Supreme Headquarters" is expectedly a more common translation, as it fits the mold, despite one meaning the literal staff body and the other a physical location. –Vipz (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

On a similar note, do you see merit in shortening Main Staff of the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Serbia to something like Main Staff of the Serbian Partisans? –Vipz (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the literal term (drawn from the German, stab), but headquarters are often mobile (Tito's certainly was until 1944), and supreme headquarters is commonly used in English references. I'm not sure about the latter question, I'll have to see what the references use. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking Hoare with respect to Bosnia, there is no doubt brevity could be improved, as the communist nomenclature is long-winded, but clarity is also important in that they were all part of the Yugoslav Partisans. On the basis of consistency with Supreme Headquarters (Yugoslav Partisans), perhaps Serbian Main Staff (Yugoslav Partisans) or Serbian Main Headquarters (Yugoslav Partisans). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Consistency sounds reasonable. If I recall correctly however, parentheses are used only to disambiguate, so avoiding them is preferable (WP:NCDAB). Especially to avoid someone moving it to Serbian Main Headquarters in the future. But at that point, we end up with only a slightly shorter title: Serbian Main Headquarters of the Yugoslav Partisans. Following the fact Croatian Partisans, Macedonian Partisans and Slovene Partisans exist, I think my former suggestion is fine, and readers should be informed about their association with Yugoslav Partisans in the lede itself. –Vipz (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What do WP:RS say, however? –Vipz (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

However, pre-emptive disambiguation by national/faction is suggested by Wikipedia:MILMOS#UNITNAME to avoid confusion (in this case with Serbian General Staff at the very least, and this was a military headquarters/staff. The Croatian Partisans etc article titles are frankly misleading, they were subsets of a national organisation, and that should be clearer in their article titles, the disambiguation also achieves that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

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 review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

This is to let you know that the Galeb-class minelayer article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 29, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject is considered to have been Australian, so I added what I have assumed to be an omission. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Then put that in the edit summary. And also explain why you removed reference to him being a war criminal. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The reference is redundant, as the convictions are described in the same sentence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually it is not. Murder can be a civil criminal offence and also a war crime. In this case, it was a war crime, and made him a war criminal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence clearly describes it as a war crime... Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No it does not. Murder can be committed by anyone. In any case, you would benefit from using edit summaries explaining your edits, even when you're believe the purpose if self-evident. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The article Jack Critchley 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:Jack Critchley and Talk:Jack Critchley/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Drover's Wife -- The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article Jack Critchley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jack Critchley for comments about the article, and Talk:Jack Critchley/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of The Drover's Wife -- The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Des Corcoran 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisans genocide, which you proposed for deletion, has exactly the same content as Bleiburg genocide, created by the same user, which has been repeatedly recreated and speedily deleted. Someone certainly has a WP:AGENDA. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2023 (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 review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

See pt:Zagreb (contratorpedeiro). :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Not just familiar, Ed! They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... :-) Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome work! :) Orderinchaos 15:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Orderinchaos! It's coming along well, but a long way from being ready for a run at FA... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

July songs

my story today

Thank you today for Galeb-class minelayer, introduced: "This hardy class of mine warfare vessels were made by Imperial Germany in the last throes of and immediately after WWI. Disarmed, they were sold to the fledgling Yugoslav navy as "tugs", but were quickly re-armed and used initially as training ships and for "show the flag" cruises to introduce the populace to the new navy. They laid mines in the immediate lead-up to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, resulting an a couple of "own goals" with friendly merchant ships. Captured by the Italians, they were put into commission as submarine chasers, and escorted merchant ships supplying the forces in North Africa. Subjected to air and submarine attacks, the six had been whittled down to one by the end of the war. The survivor was used to help clear the thousands of mines that had been laid in Yugoslav waters during the war, and wasn't disposed of until 1962." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Gerda! You are a gem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The article Des Corcoran you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Des Corcoran for comments about the article, and Talk:Des Corcoran/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

   Still dunno if I'm in the right place yet, but User:Courcelles said you wrote this article.  As I told him, the Note at the bottom of the article has an error.  In both sentences, the word "gun" is used when the correct word is "barrel".  The first sentence is "L/45 denotes the length of the gun."  That should be "L/45 denotes the length of the _barrel_ and is an indicator of the gun's accuracy and range when compared to other guns of that caliber."  I tried to edit that, but apparently the actual text is imported from somewhere else, when I go to edit it I don't see it.  Are you who I talk to about this?
   (I actually noticed this a few days ago while looking at another 'ship' page, the one on USS Portsmouth (CL-102), or I wouldn't have noticed this one.) SandyJax (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi SJ, yes, of course you are right. I have fixed, although the source used does not make the observation about accuracy and range, but happy to add that if you can provide a reliable source for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks!  No, no source.  Just 'common knowledge' among those who have worked with naval cannon. It's probably in the USN's "Gunner's Mate 3 & 2" but I was an MM(SS), don't have a copy of that one. SandyJax (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost WP:BLUE material, but everything should have a reliable source. I will look for a basic text on artillery that explicitly states it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

   Not in GM3&2, found it online at [[7]].  Chapter 6 goes into detail on how naval cannon mounts work using the 5"/54 as an example, but it doesn't every explain why the mount is called that.  I'll keep looking, too. SandyJax (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. Just BTW, globalsecurity isn't considered a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

   Understood.  Actually, I found it. It's on page one of Chapter 2, but it uses the term "gun bore".  Will try to find it in an actual USN site. SandyJax (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 6 August 2023 (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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

Hi, I've nominated a featured article candidate back on 17 July and so far it has attracted little interest. A coordinator has said that they'll archive the nomination if it does not receive any comments in the next few days. So, are you able to give your input so that I could know if there is anything to fix in the article? The nomination in question is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Party (Serbia)/archive1. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(I'm still not sure whether this is allowed because no one has answered my question, nor do I know who I should actually ask to give their input on the nomination, but I do not want the nomination to be archived so if this is not allowed just rollback these two comments). Vacant0 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/labor-shoppies-still-powerful-senator/dm6tnjq1t (Third Way)

On Labor-Left page you will see Democratic Socialism and the broad consensus there seems to be that it is a SocDem/DemSoc faction MrFluffster (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The Party Constitution also states it is a DemSoc party so it makes sense to include it atleast as a faction even if the party is generally a SocDem party MrFluffster (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

G'day, please keep these sorts of discussions on the article talk page, as they become fragmented otherwise. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:

• We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
• We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
• Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
• While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!

And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.

Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Thanks for your feedback. If you can leave it with me for a fortnight, I will try to bring something back that meets those requirements.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I’ll finish off most of the criteria then, s the rating may change with the rewrite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

Hey, PM. Hope you're well. A content dispute about violence against civilians requires a second opinion by an expert editor on such Balkan topics. You can find details here and here, if you're available for a second opinion. Thanks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Italian minesweeper Crotone.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 21:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		We really appreciate your efforts to review GANs. During the drive, the backlog of unreviewed nominations reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2023 (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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker. I hope that things are going well with you. I am planning on running Radoje Pajović as the TFA for 10 November and wondered if you fancied having a go at the blurb? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC) G'day Gog, sure. Will have a crack in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about your review. Please give me some more time to address your concerns.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robbie. There is a lot to do. I would normally only put a review on hold for a week or so, and it has been a month with no editing. I've failed it and encourage you to rewrite it as suggested and fix the image licensing then renominate it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

September songs

my story today

Thank you today for Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj, introduced (in 2021): "Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The disruptive IP on Josip Broz Tito has returned after the page protection expired. Would you mind extending the protection a bit longer? A rangeblock might be needed to fix this going forward. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I invite your response to my comments to you on Talk:Relief of Douglas MacArthur#Lead issues. I remain bewildered as to why it is so hard for me to request the source of some passages. Would you kindly just ask Hawkeye7 and the editors there to simply point the citations out? Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. Your actions did not help with that—they enabled an editor who was trying to stop discussion about article improvement to go radio silent and ignore further discussion. Another admin came along and provided the sources and we fixed the original research issue. If you are going to provide Third Opinions, especially as an admin, please consider in the future whether you are enabling discussion or stamping it out. Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)