User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 5

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.

Hi. Thanks for your WPMILHIST review of William de Mowbray, I just wanted to to let you know that I've pretty much finished working on it for now and you may care to reconsider your initial assessment. --KenBailey (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day Ken, not sure I am convinced at this stage. It certainly is fully cited, but it is incredibly sparse in terms of coverage. It might just scrape in as C class if it had any context, but there is a lot of assumed knowledge. If you would like a second opinion though, please feel free to ask at WP:MHAR, where you will find much more experienced MILHIST reviewers than I. Sincerely, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, points taken, thanks. I'm not sure that there's much more material out there to expand the coverage TBH and I'm probably not best qualified to do justice to expanding the context. --KenBailey (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm yourself;[1] for not understanding WP:AT, WP:OR, and WP:CIVIL. Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, take a deep breath and hold it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop posting sarcastic remarks and rather re-read the policies, so that you'll be able to contribute constructively. Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. You appear to be absolutely convinced you are right, and that is highly suspicious to me in any context. All the very best. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could I trouble you to take a look at the Talk:Operation Flash/GA1 and provide me advice?

Specifically, the reviewer holds an opinion that specific area where the UNCRO peacekeepers deployed should be termed in the article according to name applied by a variety of sources as "United Nations Protected Area Sector West" and I'm reluctant to use that name because all relevant UN Security Council resolutions dealing with the UNCRO define the area as "Sector West" only.

The former name was applied to the same area by the UNSC during UNPROFOR mission there which expired in 1995 and was replaced by UNCRO mission. I admit that press and other sources used the former name as it was in existence for a relatively long time (since 1992), the same way the sources often called the peacekeepers UNPROFOR even when the new mission was in place (source provided in the review). On the other hand I do not think that anything but the official designation would be proper there and varied application of names should be discussed in the UNCRO article by all means. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've declined because Antid would be unlikely to consider me neutral. Sorry, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker67. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
Message added 11:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adrian (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have found another source, I would like to hear your input on this matter. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you that you correct my mistakes in English ! Соколрус (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind mate, but please try harder on the talk page. It's doing my head in. :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tomobe03 writes only about the Serbian crimes. He deletes information on crimes of the Croatian army. I can't understand why he does this. Соколрус (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I don't quite agree with your perspective, and I consider Tomobe03 is trying to improve the article within WP policies. All articles must be balanced, use only reliable sources and have a neutral point of view. I have some questions about various aspects of the article myself, but I am sure we can reach a consensus on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

He writes only about the Serbian crimes. Here are my questions to which he did not answer Regards ! Соколрус (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to highlight these matters. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No sweat re Flash... I gave up on it days ago. I'm not familiar with the RSN though, so I'll contact you once I read more on that to check with you what need be done and in what order. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might find this video interesting. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not in printed media, but I found this article in Der Spiege. He is being linked to a gold treasure after the war. Google books also has some hits on him in German mpublications. I will do some research. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I located the Der Spiegel source and drew as much from it as my crap German language skills could, but anything else you come across would be appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This list is from Tessin and Kannapin's Waffen-SS und Ordnungspolizei im Kriegseinsatz 1939 - 1945, page 95.

• SS Recon Battalion 23
• SS Antitank Battalion 23
• SS Anti-Aircraft Battalion 23
• SS Pioneer Battalion 23
• SS Mountain Signals Battalion 23
• SS Replacement Battalion 23

I translated Abteilung as Battalion. Also note most of these units did not have a Gebirgs- prefix. Publishing data for this work:
Georg Tessin and Norbert Kannapin.
Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 2000.

W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted your interest in Yugoslavia on your user page. The article on the Royal Yugoslav Army is almost completely lacking in terms of when it was established (I believe sometime in 1919) and anything that went on prior to the German invasion in 1941. If you get a moment and can help fill in some the missing material, that would be great. I made some attempts in 2010-2011 but was stymied by a lack of good sources. Most of the Yugo sources barely mention the RYA and concentrate on either the Tito era or the fighting in the 1990's. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

you cannot depopulate categories then claim they're empty at CFD. It's vandalism. The categories are apt, because categories are not "temporary" or "current". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I reject your premise. These people were not Egyptian or Syrian. They were German and lived in those countries. In one case it is highly debatable if they were Nazis at all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

SS officers not Nazis is laughable, your premise is wrong headed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Dukovac was a Nazi? Prove it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Greetings, Peacemaker67.

Sorry to bother you about this, but I'm afraid it might be of some importance. I received a message from you concerning vandalism on Wikipedia's article concerning indigenous Australians. Now, I've spoken to my family, and no-one has edited the article in question. (I seem to be the only one who knows how to edit a Wikipedia article which, upon reflection, is rather sad.)

Assuming that they are telling the truth, there are only two other explanations. Either

1) There has been a mistake.

or

2) Someone has access to our WLAN.

I'm not sure how Wikipedia's more complex editing and reviewing processes work, but if there's no chance that a mistake has been made, please let me know at once, as we shall have to change our Wi-Fi password.

Edit: (I've just determined how to view what was written. It's... well, yeah, it's pretty awful.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.169.71 (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

can't say I know the answer to that one, but you could ask at the WP:Village Pump? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• And what in WP:CIVILITY allows this comment: "The question is why did you create and populate these categories when there isn't evidence in the article that they fit into them?" is there some motive you're trying to ascribe. Your logic is as "warped" (your word) as your citation of policy whilst ignoring the same. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

cuts both ways, chief. It would be great if you actually addressed the core issue. These guys weren't Syrian/Egyptian, you haven't addressed that at all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to present you with this medal in recognition of your great work in developing the Kosta Pećanac, Operation Trio, and 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) articles to A-class standard between January and March 2013. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Ticking along nicely now... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker67, I contact you regarding my changes in post about 13. SS division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)) I changed from Croationa to Bosniak because members of 13. SS divison Handschar was Bosniaks - not Croatians. Only few Crotians was members of 13. SS ! Bosniaks accessed 13th SS, because they so wanted to achieve independence of Bosnia, which was part of the Croatian state. But the Germans were abused Bosnians to fight against the Russians what caused the rebellion in the 13th SS division during training in France. Many rebels were killed.

(http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Spomenik_u_Villefranche_de_Rouergueu.jpg)

The monument in Villefranche de Rouergue a red star because the monument was erected in the time of communism in Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.78.60 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean with the text butting up. Unfortunately, formatting has always been my weak point. I'll try to play with it and see what I can do.

Also, as far as the Yugoslav coup article goes we should probably define the scope, and draft a new sectioning of the article. It's an interesting topic because while the actual coup itself was fairly quick and simple, there was a huge number of factors leading up to it and obviously a significant (and unfortunate) series of events which followed.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, I'll start a thread on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67:

On the Invasion of Albania page, I changed the casualty list because of a source I found in "Albania and World War II" by Jurgen Fischer. In the book, Fischer stated that records of the invasion indicated about 700 Italians were killed. This is the reason why I changed the page. If you have any questions about this, please let me know by writing back.

75.69.242.101 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

please cite the source for the information. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I checked this book, and while it doesn't mention Italian casualties, it does say "on 7 April Albania was invaded by a 30,000-strong Italian army". This disagrees with the (sourced) size of the army in the article. It might be better to give both numbers, carefully framed. bobrayner (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't substutitue anything, I've only added link to the article. Užička republika was partisan ministate that existed whereever partisans had some sort of control from late September untill beginging of December. This article should provide more details on event that predates its creation (partisan and chetnik preparation and strategies, their initial belief in quick German defeat in Russia, action of Španac in Bela Crkva, partisan-chetnik cooperation and split). Focus of article i'hve created are not Acimovic's administration, German talks with his pottetnital replacements, policy toward Jews, communists and patriots... So I don't see much reason for merging. Also one day Wikipedia will have article on uprisings in Montenegro (13 July is national holiday), Croatia (one for both comunist-led and two independent in Krajina and Herzegovina) and Slovenia. That article should provide more info on partisan actions than existing articles that deal primary with quisling entitties. -- Bojan  Talk  05:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I merged 5 discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 5#The Holocaust in Yugoslavia, and trust that you have no objection. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

not at all, I'm mobile and I just don't have the flexibility I have on the laptop. Thanks! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review on James Henry Carpenter.
Regarding B1=N - What other type of references would you like to see and where to bring up B1=Y? Any suggestions or comments are appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day, The expectation for B1 is that each para should have at least one citation (usually at the end if there is only one), and that all major points are cited. The third para of the Intro needs a citation, and the fifth para of the ACW section needs a citation for the latter part. I have to say that the article in general has the feel of a "promotional" article, and the style is not entirely encyclopaedic. It needs a bit of work in that area. I suggest you ask someone at WP:GOCE to take a run through. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Thanks! I added the two refs, some how I missed them. And I put out a copy edit request. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When you have a chance please re-check James Henry Carpenter article. References needed added and other editors have done some copy editing. Comment please? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You reckon the Yugoslav coup d'état article is ready for a GA nomination? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not yet I don't think. I think the Background and Aftermath sections need expansion from Tomasevich and Ramet. I'm mobile at the moment, and probably won't get a chance until next week. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the February 2013 Military History Article Writing Contest with 28 points from 4 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is over 250 words, hence - not a stub. Here's a tool to give you quick counts: User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, where's the fire? Nothing about 250 words at WP:MHA#CRIT. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, no fire. But there's smoke :) First, from the page you linked: "it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list". It is obvious that Ivan article is beyond that. For the reason for 250, see here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to assess as Stub based on it NOT having one of the four detailed criteria for MILHIST Start, and I don't think it has any of them, but feel free to ask someone else to have a look. I won't be offended. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker,

You may want to take another look.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker67. Could you please stop to move some Italian Divisions unilaterally. All Italian WWII Div. are consistently without the st/nd/th and there are over a hundredth. The consistency has been to number them and the name. Moving as you do some to st/nd/th creates inconsistency. Either all are moved or none! I.e. at the Alpine Divisions you moved 2 out of 6. Therefore I would ask you to stop for now and see if there is a need to move that many articles. thanks, noclador (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, if you wish to move the articles, then please move all!, noclador (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Italian Divisions World War II lists all the Italian divisions. noclador (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked all Armoured, Cavalry, Alpine, Mountain and Airborne Divisions - they all include st/nd/rd/th in the title now, and the article intro also uses st/nd/rd/th and all of these have no double redirects. Please check the others, thanks. noclador (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll go through them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Garrison, Blackshirt, African and Motorised divisions are almost all correct, so I did them too. Thus leaving all Coastal and Infantry divisions to be moved/checked. As I am logging off now, good work to you. cheers, noclador (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Coastal divs done, probably won't get all the inf divs done today. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

All done now! :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Uprising in Serbia (1941) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bela Crkva, Ravna Gora, Ravna gora and Saint John

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina are the third most populous ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Sorry, this still grates on ears, (and violates WP:LEAD/WP:BEGIN). The article title is descriptive (about Fooians who live in Bar), so it does not necessarily require the bolding. As stated in WP:BOLDTITLE:

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it:

The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy:

The Mississippi River floods in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

No such user (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had another crack. The B&H link could even go in the next sentence. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! A while ago, in a discussion about the Operation Flash GAR, you posted at my talk page that There probably should be an Army of the Serb Krajina article, actually and suggested using the term ARSK. At the time I was unaware that there is the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina redirect to Military of Serbian Krajina. I would like to take your advice, but I thought to check with you first if it is alright to use the redirect for this purpose before making any changes - and there's bound to be a lot of those, starting probably with the Operation Storm before it goes to FAC.

On a further note, I have next to zero experience with FAC, not to mention not being a native speaker of English, so could I trouble you with help with that one, perhaps in a form of co-nom?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ARSK certainly is (in my view) the appropriate acronyn and (in full in English) the proper article name. They obviously never had a navy and any aircraft they operated were either quickly shot/forced down by Operation Deny Flight or were helos flying tree-top, so Army is most appropriate. The other suggestion someone made was a name I have never heard of. I recalled it was always called ARSK when I was there, and my Google Books search confirmed that my memory isn't too bad after 20 years. As far as a co-nom is concerned, a. I doubt I have the energy for it, because there will be many that will come out of the woodwork to challenge every single word; and b. I generally stay clear of the stuff I have personal knowledge of as it can make it hard to keep perspective. Perhaps PRODUCER might feel he can help. Sorry I can't help with that one, but best of luck. I will keep an eye out for these articles and lend a hand where I feel I can though. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the wishes. Yes, I'm also certain of the likely challenge to each sentence there. All I could do was to use as neutral approach as possible and reference everything, taking example set by Prioryman a while ago with the Battle of Vukovar FAC. Hopefully the MILHIST ACR ironed out as many wrinkles as possible in advance. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're actually arguing about a film that you haven't even seen? This isn't a blog, this is Wikipedia. Articles are to be edited by people who are very well informed about a subject, this is not for people who want to show up with their biased views and propagate them on an encyclopedia. I simply don't believe you want to make the article better, because if you really cared about the subject of the film, you'd at least watch it. You've made several edits and comments that are not factually accurate concerning the content of the film, and you keep removing content just because you personally feel the film (which you haven't seen) doesn't deal with those issues. This is not acceptable. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have actually watched it now. Thanks for the tip. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing a MILHIST assessment of my article Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar. It's still awaiting completion of its DYK review at Template:Did you know nominations/Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar; is there any chance that you might be able to give it a review? Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries re: the MILHIST review. I haven't dipped my toe into DYK reviews as yet, and it really isn't a focus for me. Sorry, but good luck with it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just pinged Samuelled about this as well. If he doesn't respond I'd appreciate it if you could take on the review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries Nick. I'll give him another day then cut his grass. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Milazzo p. 77 and clarify what he precisely meant with the Italian zone being "normalized". It's been brought up at the GA review and I don't have book atm. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

sure, probably won't be for 24 hours. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

it's a reference to the restoration of peace and order, post-Ustase chaos. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen this, Appalachian Mountain Club, or this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have seen them, but they don't clarify if it is the same fellow. I assume you have German, can you see anything that indicates either way? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a person who cares much one way or the other about military intelligence units, but, thank you for your research and contribution to this article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_20#Category:Executed_collaborators_with_Nazi_Germany and see if you can confirm. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have Krätschmer's book on the KC recipients of the Waffen-SS somewhere at home. I will check what I can find on Hanke. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Krätschmer only lists him without stating any further details. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit on the infobox of the subject article because it does not reflect the academic consensus in the article. Peacemaker67

You mean it doesn't reflect neo-nazi view on the subject, yes I concur, that's why Wikipedia is such "highly praised and reputable" source of information. Yet, far worse is that historical revisionism like this lead to the recent wars in the Balkans and it will be the source of the new conflicts very soon. Negating hundreds of thousands victims of one nation on one hand and blowing out of proportion numbers of the other, while proclaiming their war criminals heroes by the international courts of "justice" can have only another bloody war as a consequence. VoodooDerina —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Get off the grass! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Project, I'm pleased to present you with this A-class medal to recognise your great work in improving the Vojislav Lukačević, Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, and Serbian State Guard to A-class standard. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Rolling along nicely now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Artur Phleps and Kurt Waldheim.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

What's your opinion on merging the list of massacres in the Independent State of Croatia and other lists of massacres in areas of the rest of occupied Yugoslavia into the list of massacres in Yugoslavia? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would want to clearly separate Yugoslavia by time period in one article, with sections for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, WWII, SFRY and FR Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Along with subheadings of the perpetrators? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe do them chronologically in a table and have a field for perpetrators? I think presenting them chronologically tells an important story, esp with respect to Ustase massacres, but I can see the need for colour-coded pins in maps too. For example to show that there were no prior Ustase massacres in some areas where Chetnik massacres occurred, that sort of thing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created a map with Chetnik and NDH massacres so far. We should create a new location map with the borders of the occupied states. Also we should probably scale the pushpins based on the severity of the massacres. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 07:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I think we should start restructuring the List of massacres in Yugoslavia article now too, and add it to Operation Bora (although it will be wider than WWII, it is important we include it). What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. I think its good to have a general paragraph or two explaining where massacres were commited and under what circumstances (as you noted with the Chetnik massacres) to accompany the map and then have the list below. Perhaps there should be color coding in the list entries, but that may be a bit much. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How's it look so far? I resized marker sizes in accords to massacre severity and added a basic paragraph from Hoare. By the way thanks for your help on the Bacovic article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon. Re Bacovic, no worries, I hope I didn't step on your toes there. You've really done some good work on it, no doubt. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks really good. List of massacres in Serbia only has Kragujevac, List of massacres in Slovenia has two. How did you rate the massacres, less than 100, 101-999 and 1000+ or what? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Added them. I used the following measures for marker sizes (hidden in article): 5 = -99; 6 = 100 - 499; 7 = 500 - 999; 8 = 1000+. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably better to have four levels. I mean, all massacres are equal, but some massacres are more equal than others. :-( Are you thinking of moving your sandbox into the existing article first or restructuring the existing article first then dropping it in? I think the summary para is good, and there are no doubt editors that will be keen to add the earlier and later ones. I have had a few interwar ones flagged for a while for inclusion somewhere, and they will go well. The map looks like a post-war one, is that right? If so, maybe we should ask someone like XrysD to make one that shows the boundaries of the occupied territories. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know yet. I'll probably sort the hidden map details first so its more accessible to other editors and things like that and then throw it in. The NDH list will have to be redirected and I'm unsure about the FR Yugoslavia being in there. What do you think about replacing the description field with a victims field? Its usually just "X killed # of Y people in Z" anyway. And yes, a new map should be created asap. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

XrysD has kindly created the new map. What are your thoughts on it? I've created a template for it here. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Great work as usual from XrysD! I like the template too. Last time XrysD did me a template I had to tweak the map coords a touch, but the boundaries look right to me (taking account the various minor changes during the war). Nice one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for your detailed review of Australian contribution to UNTAG, this is now a far better article. I have made all the changes, tweaked in some areas or provided comments for discussion. Managed to talk to Sowry on Anzac day who was the author of one of the main sources. Kind regards. AWHS (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

During the discussion Australian Operational Service Medal for civilians? you stated: my understanding about the medal and riband (not ribbon). The regulations for the medal do not mention the word "riband", but there are many mentions of the word ribbon. Could I bother you to attempt to enlighten me? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I was just being old fashioned and pendantic. Per Ribbon, the terms are effectively synonymous. Traditionally the "ribbon" from which a medal is suspended was called a riband, which is itself a corruption of the Old French riban. It is (sadly) going out of use, although some older regs in some countries use the term still. Here is an old book that uses the term throughout [2] The full formal term for what we often call "ribbon bars" now was "undress riband bars", "undress" being ordinary duty dress (not ceremonial dress uniform on which you would wear the fullsize medals). Now, there is some useless information you can file away to bore the crap out of people at parties... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

to bore the crap out of people at parties - Sadly, I'm already quite adept at that, but thanks for the concise history lesson - much more efficient than trying to find the information myself. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you sir. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yugoslav coup d'état, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you have a look at the Talk:Operation Crossroads/GA1 just to see if I missed something significant there? I'm also currently reviewing one other nom at Talk:Einsatzgruppen/GA1, but that one is not finished yet. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Your review looks good and comprehensive. Glad to help. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The other one's presumably ready now as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you just assessed 1 (RBY) Signal Squadron for WP:MILHIST. Unfortunately, when you did that, you didn't enter values for the various areas as {{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B1=?|B2=?|B3=?|B4=?|B5=?}} so it added to the incomplete B Class checklist backlog. Perhaps you could take a minute or two and complete the checklist to keep the backlog down and store the template to use it in the future. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I usually do. However, on this occasion I didn't because the article is at AfD on WP:GNG grounds. Where an article is being considered for deletion and looks like a likely contender to be deleted, I usually don't complete the checklist, I just push it out of the task force list to keep it at zero. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sir. (am so new, this is the only vehicle I could find to get to you, sorry!)

I just joined and don't feel I know what I'm doing and with much respect to you am asking that you add the following to the U.S. Army-101 Airborne Division pages for me (all). I don't know him but he is "mine" as an American citizen and I cannot tell you how proud I am of him AND the reason he states that he took the course (!). I am also proud of Allen West for speaking up for him in the following link (but I'm not sure that you want to post the link, just wanted u to see it Sir):

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/04/allen-west-teaches-obama-what-courage-is-its-not-announcing-youre-gay/ (I would not want to slaughter the pages!) Please add (and more if you feel (! I'm bubbling for this young man and crying at the same time with pride!):

"U.S. Army, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Robinson, an amputee, 34, of the 101st Airborne Division, graduated from the 10-day Sabalauski Air Assault School on Monday, April 29, 2013, and is the first amputee to have completed the courseItalic text."

How awesome is this Soldier? DAMN AWESOME SIR! (Please Lord, let this be a private message to Mr. Peacemaker67!)

Thanking you in advance for your time and attention, AmMarroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmMarroll (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! As advised a while ago, I let the Operation Winter '94 alone for a couple of weeks and now I'm starting to re-read it. Thanks to your advice I discovered a factual error there which is simple to correct, but may create wholesale confusion, so I thought to check with you first. One of the units mentioned in the article is the 1st Croatian Guards Corps - which, in fact, was "1. hrvatski gardijski zdrug", often abbreviated to 1.HGZ. Now, the source used there clearly identifies the unit as the "1st Croatian Guards Brigade (1st HGZ)". Just to make things awkward, the same source proceeds, in the same sentence, to identify the 1st Guards Brigade as another unit in the operation. Not only were there two guards brigades in Croatia numbered as the 1st, but the 1st HGZ (zdrug) was a part of the "1. hrvatski gardijski zbor", conveniently abbreviated to - you probably guessed it - 1. HGZ - and that would actually translate as corps.

I'm trying to untangle this and I'm afraid that if I rename the 1st Croatian Guards Corps in the article per source (as I should) to the 1st Croatian Guards Brigade, a casual reader might be expected to be thoroughly confused. The "Brigade" as translation of "Zdrug" appears sound per this source (page 65, note 50), but I might add that the term zdrug is thoroughly obsolete and saw the last use during the Independent State of Croatia (except for the 1st HGZ).

Now, the Operation Winter '94 (and other similar articles) Orbat tables allow explaining in the notes column that this is "1. hrvatski gardijski zdrug", but I'm wondering if such an explanation should follow the 1st mention of the 1st HGZ in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry mate, out of my depth with the nuances of Serbo-Croat/Croatian I'm afraid. Maybe ask Joy or PRODUCER for an opinion? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite certain that Zdrug=Brigade and Zbor=Corps, there's no problem with that. What worries me is that the order of battle will list the 1st Croatian Guards Brigade and the 1st Guards Brigade - and those are actually two different units (1. hrvatski gardijski zdrug and 1. gardijska brigada), the former subordinated to the President directly (as a part of the Croatian Guards Corps) and the latter to the General Staff (as any other HV unit). In short, should there be "(1. hrvatski gardijski zdrug)" as an explanation in the orbat to clarify the 1st Croatian Guards Brigade or is that unnecessary?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry mate. Wasn't clear on that score. Sure, I think a note would be appropriate at first mention, then maybe use an initialisation or acronym for the rest of the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think that niceties such as WP:BRD and the talkpage are going to be much help in this case. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bobrayner. I knew something was up there. I'll just rollback when I see him. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The revisions at Ćuška massacre are different, look at them, there was an amendment. 188.28.148.4 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I undid an edit where you put the sanctions template inside a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. The latter is used to collapse WikiProject templates into a more concise form, it does nothing substantial to another talk page template (such as the DS one). What are you talking about? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I get it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Battle of Belaćevac Mine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You know better than to edit war. You haven't broken 3RR, but this has been going on long enough. I've semi protect the article to stop the socking, but the edit warring must stop too. GedUK  12:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

please read the Evlekis sock case history! FFS. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That does not excuse edit-warring, period. You know there are directions to take instead of taking matters into your own hands. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on chief, it is not editwarring. Don't go circling the wagons on me. I am NOT taking it into my own hands. I have been advised to request semi's on the articles Evlekis socks are disrupting, and I am reverting him on sight. Exactly what I have been advised to do. I have discussed this at length with Dennis Brown, Psychonaut and others. Here. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that reverting the edits of sockpuppets is explicitly marked as exempt from the three revert rule. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, false alarm, guys. This relates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis. WilliamH (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little hasty. Ploughing through the huge backlog on RfPP I was probably a bit quick. GedUK  20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No harm done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I had another go through the Operation Winter '94 as advised by you at the ACR and would like to take it to FAC. Since you were so kind to offer assistance there regarding FAC preparation, I'd like to ask you to take a look if anything need be done before I nominate the article for an FA review. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look tonight. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Peacemaker67/Archive 5, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! WhiteWriterspeaks 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

no way! I'm gutsing the lot! ;-) thanks, I guess. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you are my sock. I take it as a great compliment that anybody would think my edits are as effective & eloquent as yours.
Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

well, thank you! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, kudos to both of you for not being deterred by the socking. Not your own socking, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)