User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Sorry

I completely miswrote what I said here, I can completely understand that you reasonably read it as being the opposite of what I was saying. I was lamenting that your and other sensible comments do nothing to fix the guideline being at odds with the view of 100s of editors expressed repeatedly. How could I miswrite it so badly. I have [edited] it. Apologies. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I clearly didn't get that sense from your original comment. I agree the guidelines need work. The more non-US/British/Australian topics get covered properly on en WP, the less discussions like this will occur. I work with diacritics in articles everyday, so I tend to be pretty pissed off when people say they shouldn't be used. They drive pronunciation, it's that simple. Sadly, MILHIST on en WP can be a bit Anglo-centric at times. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. The perennial problem appears to be that 2 or 3 editors who hover over the "use English" guideline, and also over Ana Ivanovic bizarrely, as the article where a quick RM scored some kind of victory for those who want to strip fonts down for foreigners names, are a different demographic or something to geo and bio editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav war crimes trials

I started the {{Yugoslav World War II war crimes trials}} based on info available in the Löhr bio. Do you have further information on this topic? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Future

I read your invitation: probably in future I will do it. Regards--Teo Pitta (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

May you to add links of articles in other languages on Province of Zara?--Teo Pitta (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, all you need to do is, go to the left sidebar, and click on Languages - "Add links", then you can add the language and title of the article in the other language. Have a go, and if you strike any difficulty, come back to me, and I'll show you. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

Peacemaker67,

Re: 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

I see you got the above article to FA class. Would you be interested in helping me get another German Division from World War II to a higher assessment? It would be the 23rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). I have the following book about it: The Combat History of the 23rd Panzer Division in World War II by Dr. Ernst Rebentisch. Stackpole Books (2009). Interested? Adamdaley (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, my focus is on the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units that fought in the Balkans, particularly Yugoslavia, so far I've done four FAs for Waffen-SS divisions. To my knowledge, the 23rd Panzer didn't serve there, although I am not very familiar with many of the Panzer divisions. So, I'll pass, but thanks for the offer. Just be careful relying heavily on a Stackpole-published book, they aren't highly respected, and some Milhist reviewers frown on them. Mitcham's books, for example, are quite patchy on unit histories, even though he apparently relied heavily on Tessin. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - September 2014 Newsletter

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - September 2014

Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations we want to make sure you understand the following:

  • This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
  • If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
  • The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning.

Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.

Now for the one question that we guarantee you have: how on earth will the rounds work???

Yes, we never actually had a solid platform regarding how the rounds would work because we had no idea how many people would sign-up. Even though the competition is about to begin, because sign-ups are still open, it is impossible to say exactly how each round will work. As of now, we can confirm that Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on, so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools of even numbers (for example, every pool will have 6 participants). The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.

It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on October 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.

Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on October 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!

If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.

On October 16 or 17, 2014, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User page

G'day mate. I don't edit other peoples user pages, so just wanted to remind you that it appears the letter "I" is missing just before "am only interested in reliable, published sources". Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On your user page I mean. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the correct grammar is a matter of opinion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Best of luck

G'day friend. I noticed you are participating in the GA-cup 2014-15. Since you are the only one participating I "know" I want to wish you the best of luck and fun. May the best reviewer win. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Drenović

Hi. The source for his birthplace is this , the Ravna Gora movement's official website. On the other point, I'm not sure when the communist flag started being used in BiH. Perhaps it's best to use the flag of the KPJ. 23 editor (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the RGM website as a source for anything... But I agree the KPJ flag is best for 1941. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2014 – September 2015

Hi PM, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. Thanks for standing and all the best for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. Good choice for lead coord. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup question

G'day mate. I noticed you recently nominated two articles for GA-status under the warfare section. Since I intend to start off the cup by reviewing the listed warfare nominations, and you are a participant yourself, would I be considered a dick if I review your articles? I mean, in case they are put on hold, then you would have to take time to comment and work on that instead of actually participating in the cup. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem for me. I see you have a few nominated too. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pećanac Chetniks

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pećanac Chetniks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pećanac Chetniks

The article Pećanac Chetniks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pećanac Chetniks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

The article 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

URGENT GA CUP QUESTION

I noticed you personally edit your submission page. Do you have to do that yourself? I thought the freakin' judges did that? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No mate, the way I understand it, they check it and score it, but you have to add the articles. Otherwise how would they know what articles you are entering? I noticed you hadn't put yours up yet. All of mine are on review, but you have a few that could be scored. I'm interested to see what scores they get. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, cheers mate. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, did I do it right Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/Jonas Vinther? And If I have, why is it not shown on the submission page for all participants? (speak to me!) 15:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind bro, I now fully understand this. Thanks for the help. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Loring GA

Thanks for reviewing that article, as it was great to get it all done in such a short period of time! I don't know what happened, but I just got a bot notification that stated that it was failed, so I am wondering if you might be able to look into that, since it's the opposite of what you decided. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: You might also be interested in this quirk. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like Legobot went mad. Doesn't affect the review, just the notification. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

July to September 2014 MilHist reviews

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook a very impressive 18 reviews. Without reviewers like you it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high-quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

BATTLE OF MOSTAR ANSWER

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Howdy. Thank you for your message. I am a bit confused why was my edit reverted. Nowhere except in early Yugoslavian communist papers were chetniks labeled as Axis. As a matter of a fact, they were not present in that battle at all, on neither side. While they were fighting the communists, they were also fighting all other fractions, but their main enemies were Croatian Ustashe and communists. If you check out this page, the very first line says they were anti axis. Actually, they were the very first anti-axis movement in Europe, and started their resistance days after the occupation. Leaving them on that list is utterly incorrect. Cheers. Slav Karach (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Chetnik detachments fought on the Axis side for considerable periods during the war, and some made alliances with the Italians, Germans and NDH at different stages, people like Pavle Đurišić, Uroš Drenović etc etc. This is well-known, and documented in hundreds of academic books and scholarly articles published around the world. The overall movement may have been anti-Axis in its long-term goals, but the vast majority of Chetnik detachments collaborated with the Axis occupation forces at one point or another from December 1941 until the end of the war. There isn't any doubt about it, despite what Serbian school textbooks say. Try reading the Featured Article on Pavle Đurišić or the MILHIST A-class article on Vojislav Lukačević. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No doubt there were some that collaborated. Chetnik in Serbian means someone who's taken up arms and fighting a guerrilla war. Not sure how do you make a connection between Lukachevich and Mostar. My argument was that that particular detachment you mentioned was not involved in the said battle, and most certainly wasn't not on the Axis side. Let's fix this page by page, and there is absolutely no reason or proof to back the claim that's made on this page. Even under the belligerents section, there is no mention of Chetniks. I had pleasure of actually listening to all these stories first hand (from both sides as people from that area were split between Chetniks and Partisans), and also knowing the leader of that Chetnik detachment. People of Nevesinye erected his statue a few years ago. His granddaughter is one of my best friends. I removed their name from that section because it'd be very insulting to them.

Slav Karach (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting Lukacevic was at Mostar. I've never read that. It's also not about who would be insulted, frankly it doesn't matter to WP. It is what is reliably sourced. On this occasion, and at this time, the Chetnik detachments involvement at Mostar is not sourced, but if it is in the future, then it will be restored to the article. It is as simple as that. Given the amount of POV-warriors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, I pretty much reflexively revert editors that remove Chetniks from articles where they have been aligned with the Axis, as it is nearly always POV-pushing. I trust that is not the case with you, and as I have not had dealings with you before, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll do some research. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I have sourced the involvement of 600 Nevesinje Chetniks as fighting on the Axis side in this operation, from Anic, a book published in 2004. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
WOW, Nikola Anich is as good of a source as a homeless guy in downtown Atlanta. 600 fighters is more than this brigade had, especially that late in the war. They tried to make a parallel run to take Nevesinye at the same time, but were not successful. This had nothing to do with the Axis, except the fact that communist made it their goal to pain the history any way they wanted it. Croatia is officially still objecting the fact that Chetniks were Allies, and this book was republished in 2004 in Croatia. Yeah, anyone can say whatever they want, but really, consider the sources. Not even Vladimir Dediyer, personal Tito's historian made such claims in his books, and he did a whole book on that area. I am all for neutral point of view, and have never tried to prove that one side was composed of saints only, but this source from 2004 (originally published in the 80s) is so biased, that it makes me cringe. I know you live in Australia, and it's hard for you to understand why one side (communists) would try to pain this picture and support it by blatant lies, but in the Balkans, it seems that that method never stops working. I live in Georgia now, and you can find monuments erected by the Sons of Confederacy, to try to never forget their cause. The winning side allowed them to do this right after the war, but in the Balkans, propaganda on all sides is so strong, and people are so uneducated, that official sources from the last 70 years are nothing but stories for little kids. Only recently, there have been some historians who are trying to find better sources, and tell stories as they happened. The fact that Drazha Mihailovich was awarded the highest awards by the US, France, and the UK, and the fact that he's being rehabilitated after being executed by the communist after his staged trial, should be enough to question communist sources. Also, 600 people... Dude, our brigade in this war, 50 years later barely had more than that, and it was composed of people from two more counties. At that time, their numbers were way smaller than 600. Wehrmacht kept documents on all their operations, and not in single one of them, Chetniks from that area were on the same side. Wehrmacht documents are available, if you know German. This historian from Serbia is doing a great job of digging through those and publishing them in Serbian: http://www.pogledi.rs/ You should check it out. Lots of his content is available in English only, as well as documentaries that he's producing. This is not Chetnik documentation, but he's using that when available too, but German, which historians agree that it's fairly accurate and unbiased.

Slav Karach (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Anic, then take it up at WP:RSN. The place for this discussion is on the talk page for the Mostar operation, not here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No points for me ...

I don't want to be a dickhead, but if you don't reply to those messages I left for you at Talk:392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)/GA1 and Talk:Pećanac Chetniks/GA1 I apparently wont be awarded any cup points! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 10:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy. Will do. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. No rush though. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 10:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Done! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

USRC Forward (1842)

Okay, I'll bite...where am I remiss in my efforts to make the article as complete as I can? I gather that you are not questioning the accuracy of what is there from your assessment remarks. I think I know where it is deficient and it is more than likely will remain that way, however I would like your opinion. Cuprum17 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think the ACW coverage was sufficient. There is no mention of any ships taken or sunk, or even whether she did take any ships during the war. For a ship employed during the ACW, I would have thought that was a pretty big gap. It may be that there is no information available on that? I won't be offended if you want someone to re-assess it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, the ACW coverage is rather sparse but the reasons I give you will not solve the problem with the article. I have information that is what I would consider probably correct, but cannot find a source to use as a reference. I can document that Forward served most of the civil war at Beaufort, North Carolina and I have cited that in the article. What it did there and what its mission was is very hazy. To my knowledge, referenced or not, she did not capture any ships or engage any ships. Commissioned in 1842, Forward was a schooner with no machinery. During the 1840s and 1850s both the U.S Navy and the U.S. Revenue Marine (separate services, different budgets; mind you) made great strides in steam powered vessels. The Revenue Marine, being a much smaller service than the Navy, often lacked the funds to purchase up to date vessels so they would use what they had. If the Civil War not come along and the Navy needed every vessel they could get ahold of for blockade duty along the Atlantic coast, my guess is that Forward would have been retired in the very early 1860's in favor of steam powered equipment. My theory is that Forward was probably at anchor for weeks on end at the mouth of one the of the many estuaries in the Beaufort area to prevent Confederate blockade runners from bringing sorely needed war materials from reaching the troops inland. As soon as the Navy no longer needed blockade ships, the Revenue Marine retired her in favor of newer equipment. In other words, it served its best purpose by just being where it was; much like the Cold War tactics used by the United States in the 1960's. I have known dozens of men who served in the United States Armed Forces during the Cold War that retired having fortunately never seen combat. I can attest to the fact that as a retired chief petty officer in the Coast Guard that many patrols were merely routine in matter for weeks on end followed by a few minutes of furious activity during a rescue or a law enforcement boarding gone bad.
The Revenue Marine (after ~1860 more commonly the Revenue Cutter Service) and it successor service, the United States Coast Guard, had not done a very good job of keeping historical records until the 1980's. This is because it being the smallest of the United States Armed Services, funds were always very tight and Coast Guardsmen have always been very proud of the fact that they did more with less than the other larger services. The price we pay today is that much of the records of early missions and achievements are lost to us.
I hope that you don't consider this mouseshit, as you so eloquently put it at the top of the page, but I did the best I could under the circumstances to write the article with all of the information that I could reliably source. I am not going to have the article reassessed by someone else because I respect your judgment and can see where the article lacks information that the reader might want. I could have faked the information, but that is not how I operate. My goal is to present the information on the Coast Guard and its predecessor agencies as accurately and completely as possible. Sometimes completeness has to take a back seat to accuracy and this is one of those cases. I once wrote an article on the third Commandant of the Coast Guard, Worth G. Ross, that can not account for his whereabouts or duties for sixteen years of his military career. (an article, that is by way of mentioning, a B class article!)
USRC Forward (1842) is the last article that I am going to request an assessment on. I will continue to research articles and make them as good as I can because I believe in the Wikipedia mission and I enjoy the historical research. Do not take this personally, sir... this decision has been slowly been headed this direction for some time now. I am tired of the politics that goes on...it is my personal policy to assess at least a couple of articles for each one I submit for a B class assessment. I can post an article for B class assessment and it can stay there for days without anyone offering to look at it. Finally, Rupert will take pity on me and render an opinion and perhaps make a correction or two if he has the time. Good man, that Rupert! I hope he remains engaged with the project. Some others can submit articles for assessment and get instant results without doing many reviews themselves. From my prospective, I see very little mentoring on the MH Project. I have always tried to lend a hand; it hasn't always worked out, but I like to think that it has helped someone along the way. I have bent your ear long enough, congratulations on your election as a coordinator for the coming year, I know that it is going to take a lot of your spare time. If I could impress you with one thing it would be that the project needs to do everything it can to encourage and RECOGNIZE new talent. There are maybe two or three dozen active members who do most of the edits...lose a few here and there and the Project could suffer. Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you will not be using WP:MHA anymore, I believe it is a useful venue for editors to get a fresh perspective on the content of their articles, as well as first formal assessment process. There is a bit of quid pro quo that goes on at MHA that reflects who does the heavy lifting with GA, ACR and FAC reviewing. I certainly prioritise reviews put up by editors that contribute across the board. I certainly don't begrudge you the opportunity to explain the lack of sources on her activities during the ACW (ie it's not mouseshit), and I know that can be a difficulty. I too have written several articles on WWI/WWII torpedo-boats of the Austro-Hungarian and Yugoslav navies that are C-class for want of a little more information about one aspect of their career. Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 is an example. I live in hope, and always look for more sources when I am lucky enough to get to a library, but the smaller the ship/boat and the more obscure the service, the less chance of good sources on their activities. I've had the same problem with bios getting stalled at B-class, GA and A-class. Sadly, that is the reality, not every article will be FA one day. Your point about mentoring is well made, we really just welcome people and leave it them to engage. Thanks for taking the time to explain the situation. Regards,

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking over what you said about not using WP:MHA, and I see your point. A second set of eyes on an article can help the process of getting an article right. I will, after I have given myself a burnout break, will jump back in and give it a go once more. I periodically "burn out" every year or so and have to leave for a while and get my mind right as far as getting along with everyone on the project. I'm terribly afraid of posting something that I will be very sorry about later. Thank you for your counsel and understanding. See you down the road... Cuprum17 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I can come across as a bit brusque at times, they tell me... Look forward to seeing you back at MHA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Serbian Government of National Salvation - Adminstrative Divisions

G'day Peacemaker! I'm looking to update my maps of the Balkan WWII states as I've recently come across high quality data covering the area. Looking back at the history of the article Government_of_National_Salvation it was you who put in the table of the Okrugi and Srezovi so you may be able to help with this. When I made the original map I took the name of the Srezovi (municipalities) from a schematic British WWII map. The new source data I have is a 100k map of Yugoslavia showing admin boundaries to the sub-srez level. Now the problem I am having is that the names of the srezovi don't agree between my two sources. What I am wondering now is that the British map just showed the admin centre of the srez, not its actual name. If this is the case then I will need to update my map and the table. However the text does gives a reference for the table. However this isn't online so I can't check if it lists the names. Before I go changing it all, do you have access to any independent data that confirm the current srezovi names? Cheers mate! XrysD (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look, I'm not sure I have anything with that level of detail. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johann Mickl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 12th Panzer Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Scotland under the Commonwealth

Hi. I hope to get the corrections to this article done in the next couple of days, but this might fall outside of the 7 day period.--SabreBD (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on this.--SabreBD (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries at all, makes a nice change from WWII history, an interesting subject. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A word of support

Hi. You deserve a medal for putting up with that abuse. I suspect someone has been stirring passions up - but on behalf of the regular South African Milhistorians we apologise - we aren't all like that Gbawden (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for popping by. Like most soldiers, I get the shits with cowards and bullyboy tactics, it's as weak as piss. I have little doubt the subject of the article would think so too. I've seen you regularly AfDing fresh articles, and I know you are hard but fair. I'd like to think I am too, but others are the best judge of that. No harm, no foul as far as you are concerned, you argue within the policies, even if we don't always agree. The others involved, well, let's say it's not a good first impression. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mickl

I will have a look and send you what I can find. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Once I've got him ready for FAC, I'm going to have a trawl through for more on Lohr. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Did I send you pages 30 to 32? I checked these pages and it does not mention his 1st Silver Medal, it only briefly mentions the actions leading to his 2nd presentation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, you sent me the whole chapter on WWI, through to p.35 or so. I've just added the award chronologically into the text. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will scan more pages for you if you want. Löhr is going to take a while for me to address further. I have four books on him now and I have yet to figure out how to condense the information. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The key for me is anything on his time in WWII, particularly commanding panzers or with 392. Inf-Div. All help appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I get to it, probably this week end. Regarding Heinz Heuer, another difficult nut to crack. I will see what I have. I am currently hunting down info on Karlfried Nordmann, president of Mercedes Benz and fighter pilot. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Heinz Heuer

I'm not sure if I understand your last question. The sentence says: The head of the order commission of the AKCR, Walther-Peer Fellgiebel, wrote in a letter to Heuer dated 24 November 1985: "evidently dubious, to put it mildly." MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean, was Fellgiebel telling Heuer that Scherzer was "evidently dubious" of Heuer's award? Or was he dubious regarding the refusal of the AKCR to give him access to their records? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I read the information as follows. Heuer filed claim for being a Knight's Cross recipient with the AKCR. Fellgiebel at that time was investigating the evidence for this claim. Fellgiebel initial reaction was to write back to Heuer that the evidence provided is "evidently dubious, to put it mildly." This letter from 24 November 1985 is in the records of the AKCR to which Scherzer had/has access. Scherzer in his book then questions the AKCR's decision to list Heuer as a KC recipient because, 1st no evidence in the German National Archives, and 2nd, Fellgiebel's initial reaction to the evidence was to be doubtful of the evidence (classified it as dubious). Makes sense? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Reviews

I don't mean to bother you but I noticed that you have a moderate amount of experience when reviewing articles. I've nominated the BMPT and the BMD-3 and was wondering if I could get your insight on them. Khazar (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I don't usually review vehicle articles, but given it's GA Cup time, I might have a look. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

GA Cup -Round 1 Newsletter

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1

As we move into the middle of Round 1, we wanted to report some of the lessons we've learned thus far, as well as announce a major rule change going into Round 2, which begins November 1. Remember, sign-ups for this year's Cup ends on September 15.

Thus far, we're very happy with the results of the competition. One of our major goals, reducing the long backlog at GAN, is well on the way to being accomplished, mostly due to the enthusiastic efforts of Jonas Vinther, who has earned over 250 points. Over 80 reviews have been made thus far. Thank you all for your efforts and for your part in making the GA Cup a success.

However, this is the inaugural year of the GA Cup, so there have been some unforeseen circumstances that have come up. One has been a glaring inadequacy with the rules, which the judges feel makes the competition unfair. As a result, there will be a major change in the rules, starting at the beginning of Round 2:

  • Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification.

What this means is that you must provide some feedback to the article's nominator, and must wait for him or her to respond before passing the article. If the nominator has not responded in the standard 7 days, you can fail the article. We're instituting this rule change to prevent the possibility of competitors passing articles for the sake of passing articles (or failing them) and to gain more points. We believe that the change will make it more fair to all competitors in the GA Cup.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, we increased the "guarantee" for Round 2 to 25 participants. The exact number will be decided in the near future.

We thank your for your participation, and for your flexibility and understanding as we learn what works and what doesn't work in this competition.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup Newsletter Correction

Hi everyone,

It was brought to the attention of the judges that there was an error in the newsletter sent out earlier today.

Sign-ups for the GA Cup will close on October 15, 2014, not September 15, 2014 (as mentioned in the newsletter).

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Gutierre Fernández de Castro

Where is it lacking citations? Srnec (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

bottom of Family etc section. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1

Hello GA Cup competitors!

The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal.

To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system.

Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nordmann

May I ask you to have a look at the question Ruth has posed? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Johann Mickl

Hello, Peacemaker67. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Let me know if you need more info MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the Napoleonic era

You recently added a banned to Timeline of the Napoleonic era requesting citations. There is a new user making a large expansion to the article without any citations and apparently not willing (or not yet familiar) with how to discuss issues on the talk page. I think that citations would help the article but a comment from another editor on the talk page may encourage the editor to add citations along with the new information that is being added. As you added the banner perhaps you would be willing to explain the the user why citations are needed. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help, have pinged. See how it goes. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Updates to Balkan WWII Maps

I appreciate the Thanks for the Montenegro map! That map has been a long time coming, I just needed better source data plus proper references which thankfully now are there. Albania will be next up followed by new versions of NDH and Serbian Government of National Salvation. XrysD (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are a bloody legend. Your work on these maps has already made a big difference in the coverage of Yugoslavia in WWII. Thanks heaps! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Peacemaker, it's nice to be appreciated :) XrysD (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive

September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for placing first in the WikiProject's September–October 2014 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Golden Wiki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Working Man's Barnstar
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's September–October 2014 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian!

Battle of Ettlingen

Thanks for assessing Battle of Ettlingen. You left a note on the assessment page, "Image licensing will need checking if going to GAN". Is this just a friendly reminder to check images, or did you see something that wasn't quite right? Please reply. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, no it was specific. Several of the images don't have US PD licences, but are almost certainly PD-Art|PD-old-100 due to the date of death of the artist, which needs to be added to reflect the image being on the US servers. A couple don't have a date of death of the artist, or don't have an author. That could be problematic. File:Graf Latour.jpg is one of these. If you get stuck, I've always found Nikkimaria to be helpful and knowledgeable on image copyright problems. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Australian motorsport vehicles

There is a discussion at WikiProject Motorsport you may or may not have an opinion on. V7867 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, not into motorsport. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Happy Halloween!!!

 Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

'"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple.


If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!


Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav monitor Sava

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav monitor Sava 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav monitor Vardar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav monitor Vardar 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively.

Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters).

In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive_11&oldid=998992671"