Jump to content

User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Archive Note

Everything on Archive #1 is from 2017 to the end of 2018, Archive #2 is for 2019, and Archive #3 is for 2021 till September, and here Archive #4 is 2021 from September. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary References

@Rosguill I'm currently working on a sandbox about the French Imperial Marine Corps, and want to use a reference regarding their organisation from the French Army website. However, this is considered a primary reference, though I do a secondary reference to back it up.

So, my question is, can I use the primary as long as it is backed-up by a secondary? Or can I just use the primary if the secondary doesn't work? Or, am I just completely missing something? J-Man11 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The component that I think is missing from this question is what the nature of the claim is. If it is something that is both uncontroversial and self-evidently due (e.g. year of foundation for an organization, assuming it's not contested), then it's fine to just use a primary source. If the information is either controversial or of unclear relevance (e.g. specific claims regarding operations carried out by the FIMC), then you should stick to secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It has to do with the formation date and name changes. So the primary is fine? J-Man11 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Toral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Irish Regiment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 163rd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States) has been accepted

163rd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nyanardsan (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 22nd Army Corps has been accepted

22nd Army Corps, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nyanardsan (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Future Soldier

Hey, just quickly created this. Feel free to work on it. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You're just torturing me now ha ha, so I'll help you out instead, check 'Glimpse on Future Soldier', the amazing article done by the Royal United Services Institute on the Army 2020 Refine program (a bit outdated, but has a great general overview), and Janes did a good article on it I recently saw in my email [public link here] and also here regarding the new mobile artillery platform. Some more links regarding the new 'rangers', since that seems to be all the rage atm.: [1] [2] [3]. J-Man11 (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Have another one for you @SmartyPants22 here. I follow Jack Rutling because of his work in the army field, and you might want to add something about the upgrades. See here. J-Man11 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Permission to work on new page

Hello @Buckshot06 and @Rosguill I'm asking before I do it. So my question is if I may work on my page for the 1st Dumbartonshire Rifle Volunteers which is currently in sandbox. It still needs fixes and further refs, etc. But I don't want to work on it if I'm going to keep getting stomped on before it starts. When it finish it (will take a while), I'd like to move it to a draft and have it reviewed before it's 'published'. Once again, I have quite a lot to fix and add, but I have the skeleton and would like to finish it, as it is one of the better articles I've started along with the Worcestershire Rifles. J-Man11 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You know that I have repeatedly said and taken to administrator pages that you should not work on military history after 1850. Others would have had you blocked completely: I have taken a more lenient view. So you have a simple question to answer: does this involve military history after 1850? If it does, no, no, don't work on it, I will take you to WP:CR and start administrator action. So you would ask Rickfive to complete it. If before 1850, and ends before 1850, feel free. This will be the answer for any requests you have for years to come. Stick to before 1850 and ending before 1850. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship #2

Last tag for a while, I promise.. @Buckshot06, and I'll even go further because I want to improve here, also @SmartyPants22, @Dormskirk, and @Thewolfchild. With regard to mentorship would you mind just reminding me what you would like me to work on? What I have in-mind: Primary v. Secondary references, Redlinks (I understand about keeping them, but not enough to say I'm confident in the field), Bluelinks (when to/not to use links several times on a page/section), and though small, the difference between 'Drafts, Sandboxes, Userspaces, and Article space'. J-Man11 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

One thing I would mention is "too much detail". In this edit the information should have been limited to battalion level material: company level is just too detailed. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Well the reason for that edit was to expand the page from the independent battalions' pages. Because of the Royal Corps of Signals page has that, along wit the Royal Engineers and I wanted to bring the page inline. J-Man11 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
My view is that both articles should stop at battalion level. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd say you're being quite modest, and have made a fairly comprehensive list of issues. The only thing I would add is be consistent. IOW, stick to this and see it through. Good luck to you Jman - wolf 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

I forget, do you archive? Cuz your talk page is getting fairly long, (180Kb). Just curious... Cheers - wolf 15:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but no. I want to, I've been trying to figure it out. Before I've just made them into spoilers, but that just messes it all up. J-Man11 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild update, as you can see by all the crazy changes I've just made, it's all been archived. I organised it by year to make it easier, you can see at the top of the page how it went about. I took EVERYTHING since I created the page, from my first interaction with Buckshot to the end of August this year. J-Man11 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Glad it worked out. Cheers - wolf 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hompesch Hussars

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hompesch Hussars you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Régiment Royal Louis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Régiment Royal Louis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hompesch Hussars

The article Hompesch Hussars you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hompesch Hussars for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominations

Hello thanks for adding everything for the GAs @The Rambling Man, I'm currently finishing up an article, and once I'm done with that I'll start working on the GA articles. J-Man11 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom)

The article 15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

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) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Régiment Royal Louis

The article Régiment Royal Louis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Régiment Royal Louis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Prussian Infantry Regiment

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Prussian Infantry Regiment 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 Fritz von Valenstadt -- Fritz von Valenstadt (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom)

The article 15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:15th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hompesch Hussars

The article Hompesch Hussars you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hompesch Hussars for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Régiment Royal Louis

The article Régiment Royal Louis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Régiment Royal Louis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"President of the National Committee" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect President of the National Committee. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#President of the National Committee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment

The article 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Swiss Regiment (France)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Swiss Regiment (France) 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tirailleurs du Po

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tirailleurs du Po 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tirailleurs du Po

The article Tirailleurs du Po you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tirailleurs du Po for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Swiss Regiment (France)

The article 1st Swiss Regiment (France) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1st Swiss Regiment (France) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment

The article Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Swiss Regiment (France)

The article 1st Swiss Regiment (France) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1st Swiss Regiment (France) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment

The article Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tirailleurs du Po

The article Tirailleurs du Po you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tirailleurs du Po for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Name changes

Hi - I noted your are making various name changes and that some of those changes (but not all of them) use disambiguation. It seems to me that there is no need to disambiguate 12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team or 20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It was my understanding they could be confused with the American BCTs? J-Man11 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware that the US Army uses the same terminology in the titles of their brigades. Certainly I cannot find any US Army articles at present with "Brigade Combat Team" in their title. It might be useful (as always with page moves) to get the views of other editors before moving them again. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
For instance: 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division (United States) or 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. J-Man11 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough. I agree. In which case 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division (United States) probably ought to be moved to 1st Brigade Combat Team (United States) and 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division probably ought to be moved to 3rd Brigade Combat Team (United States) to keep things consistent! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm not focusing on the United States (yet). Though I do plan on starting once my currently articles I'm working on are done. J-Man11 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
OK. That's great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Dormskirk, why would suggest that? There are currently ten "1st Brigade Combat Team" articles for the US Army. (See Category:Brigade combat teams of the United States Army) Including the parent Division name serves as both dab and best search term. - wolf 00:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Wolf Yes, agreed. I am not adequately familiar with the structure of the US Army and take your point. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I know what you mean though, so I see what wolf means. J-Man11 (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

New task force

Hello there @Kirill Lokshin would you mind adding my new task force to the WikiProject Military history template? Cheers. J-Man11 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment

The article 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division

The article 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivan Fyodorovich Emme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Alkmaar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:British Army Volunteers

Template:British Army Volunteers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan go ahead, not sure why I created that in the first place tbh.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1795 French Directory election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Elders.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Graphics

Hello @Elli, I was wondering how I could go about making the graphics for county level results in elections, referendums, etc. I noticed you created a few, so I was looking around to see how to make them myself, as I have some results I'd like to convert into maps. Cheers, J-Man11 (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question! I usually color maps located in c:Category:Standardized SVG county maps of US states using Inkscape. It's not the easiest but you'll get the hang of it. There are some more advanced methods, involving using GIS software (usually for precinct/municipality maps and other cases where doing it by hand would be very tedious and the data is already in a decent format for computers). I'm not very skilled there, but there's a group of a few editors on Discord who work on creating maps together, I'd be happy to send you an invite if you're interested. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the quick reply! I'm actually in the discord, so that would be perfect if you could direct me. My name in the discord is "J-Man11/Coldstreamer". J-Man11 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denis Decrès, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Saints.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Buildings

Hi @Dormskirk I have some building articles I'm transferred from other language articles, and have a small issue. I'm not sure how to add the wikimap in the infobox. I've just finished Hôtel de la Guerre you can see what I mean here (compared to Hôtel de la Marine). Any help is welcome! J-Man11 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Done. I just moved the coordinates into the infobox. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh.. thanks, didn't know it was that easy cheers! J-Man11 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

MASSIVE re-structuring

Hi there @Dormskirk, @Buckshot06, and @SmartyPants22. Well... all I can say is I'm actually impressed, seems the British Army is FINALLY doing something useful. Great to see some good changes and reorganisations coming down. Now obviously Buckshot I won't be publishing this or anything, but I've compiled part of the released information that is available and putting it all together so we can update the brigade/division, and new 'group' pages. See here: User:J-Man11/Future British Army Structure. Again I'M NOT PUBLISHING THIS, this is more or less a database to compile the changes and information. As it is currently Thanksgiving over the pond I can't finish and will be going out for a bit, but when I get back I can finish it up. Feel free to add something ONLY ON THE TALK PAGE. I apologise for the caps, but it freaks me out when I see a bunch of stuff changes, so if you could either A) create a new section at the bottom, like "additions" or "more information" or whatever, or add on the talk page, that would be fantastic! I haven't added references a whole lot yet as this (again) is not going to be published. But this is my main reference: [4]. Note: obviously isn't finished, but if you click on the unit it brings you to their future formation. Good editing, and enjoy the new changes, seems like there is finally a good re-structuring coming. Also good to see 19th Brigade back, but sad to see some of the support formations being reduced to groups. Either way looks good so far. Hopefully this new structure can be kept up. J-Man11 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Polotsk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Question for lists

Hi @Dormskirk if you wouldn't mind quickly looking at this: 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade#List of structures. I was planning on doing the "table lists" on the formations which are having changes. I'm planning on doing three: 1st (2014) -> Army 2020, 2nd (2020/21) -> Army 2020 Refine, and 3rd (2024/25) -> Future Soldier. J-Man11 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the detail but the format looks OK to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I was asking you, because I don't want to see a million lists on a page, but if it's organised like a table it makes it easier for the eyes. I just wanted to make sure that was fine, as I know you're definitely a veteran here. J-Man11 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

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) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Noclador is driving me crazy!

Hi there @Dormskirk and @Rosguill I've tried, but can't seem to get through to @Noclador. It seems for some reason he wants to change EVERY SINGLE British Army unit RIGHT NOW. Name changes won't be occurring until 2023 along with re-structuring. In addition, he's going around changing all the brigade pages, which also won't be changed until next year. Please talk to him and calm him down, because he's driving me crazy. He keeps using the phras "New Name", but he doesn't understand that reforms take time, and changes don't happen overnight. This is not just confusing but driving me crazy since I'm working on adding the old structures, current, and future and his edits are overlapping and close to driving me over the edge. I've described a bit more here to him: Talk:7th Signals Group (British Army), and tagged way too many people looking back, but I don't want to seem like an ass for picked on him, just driving me a bit crazy atm. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I see he has replied at Talk:7th Signals Group (British Army). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for some reason I'm not get notifications when people reply, I've replied. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.noclador (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

2PWRR

FYI: 2PWRR tomorrow will form 2Ranger Regiment. noclador (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Just left a response on your talk page, but in short I recieved the news about 2 weeks ago (on the 15th), but couldn't cite it properly as I received it via a RHQ update (which technically I can't release). This also might help (somewhat), but I requested two foy-as (FOI(A)s) here, but of course no information was released as I asked just after I got it privately from RHQ, PWRR. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.

Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Anjou and Saintonge

Hi, you've been pretty bold recently with your moves and splits related to Anjou and Saintonge, unless I'm wrong and you've discussed these somewhere. I'm not familiar with Saintonge, but shouldn't the Duchy of Anjou not still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Anjou? In any case, if you do think both should be disambiguation pages, the disambiguation page needs to be at the base title, not at the ...(disambiguation) title (see WP:MALPLACED) and additionally, the moves created hundreds of disambiguation pages with links to be fixed. Lennart97 (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, so they should remain on those pages, as the old "provinces" are in-fact different than the current/old "regions". Granted their isn't too much of a difference, but they are still different. Now you are correct about the disambig, but not sure what you mean that there shouldn't be the (disambig) suffix? If I'm reading this correctly, you want me to add a page called (for example) "Anjou" which IS a disambig page which goes to the different parts of Anjou, like the Duchy and the region? If that is the case, I'll work on that. A lot of these pages DO INDEED need to be split as they are very old and don't show a difference between (possibly) a current region, province, and former countries. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue with the titles was that Anjou was a redirect to Anjou (disambiguation) while it should be the other way around, as WP:MALPLACED explains. I've fixed that for you, same with Saintonge.
The essential question is: is there a primary topic? Are readers searching for "Anjou" equally likely to be looking for the County or the Duchy? If yes, then the current setup is fine. But if most readers are more likely to be looking for the Duchy than for anything else, Anjou should take them straight to Duchy of Anjou instead of to the disambiguation page. Have you thought about this? Lennart97 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Well you bring up a good point, however the term "Anjou" (typically) refers to both the region and/or the disambig. The "County/Duchy/Province of Anjou" however, is used when referring to "Anjou" as a province and country/region in the KINGDOM. Though the "Anjou (region)" is used for AFTER the monarchy era, as the old titles disappeared. So honestly, it's really 1/2 and 1/2. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
You may be right, and certainly know more about it than I do. So, then there is the issue of the links. Hundreds of pages have internal wikilinks to Anjou, which used to direct to the page about the County/Duchy/Province. Now they link to the disambiguation page Anjou, but they shoulnd't: see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. For each of these links it should be determined which meaning of Anjou is meant and the link changed accordingly. (Same for Saintonge). That's a big task, and myself and others who regularly fix links like these are definitely willing to tackle some of them, but it would be great if you could help too. User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist is a very easy to use and efficient tool for fixing many of these quickly. Lennart97 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I will very much help, I wasn't aware (at first) about all the links going there, so I will most certainly help out, as it is an issue I created. So in short: "Anjou" is really a disambig in general, as the "County/Duchy/Province of Anjou" refers to the region before 1792 (1790 really), and after that "Anjou" refers to the region (the old province plus a little bit). Also "Anjou" could mean about a hundred other things for cooking (speaking from experience), or also the title of "Duke of Anjou" refers to the Countes/Dukes and province, not the region. So again, it's pretty 1/2 an 1/2 but I'll certainly start working on it once I get done with class later today. My apologies for the inconvenience. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks in advance :) I'll definitely fix some of them as well. Lennart97 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of, User:Coldstreamer20/common.js having a slight issue here. The assist thing doesn't want to work for me? Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind I'm an idiot.. Ha ha got it fixed. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to pay closer attention to what you are doing. You added a link to the Duchy of Anjou (created 1360) to an article on Desiderius of Aquitaine (died 587). Srnec (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh that was my mistake, sorry. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I had posted a question for you at Talk:1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade#Format, but I pinged "Coldstreamer" by mistake. I've just corrected that (and now with this post you know about it again, so I hope to see a reply there soon), but when I looked up "Coldstreamer", I noted they had only made few edits over a short time and since then, haven't used the account now going on 15 years. If you were interested, you might be able to usurp the account for yourself, if you wanted that username. I don't know anything about it so you'd have to look into it. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Hope things are going well and congrats on the new handle. - wolf 10:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha no problem @Thewolfchild, I'll check it out, but I'm fine with this name as it is. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Auguste-Louis Petiet

Hello, Coldstreamer20,

Whenever you bring over content to the English Wikipedia from another project, please be sure that all categories also exist in the English Wikipedia category hierarchy and remove the nonexistent, red link ones. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories either have to be removed from the page or the categories need to be created so that they fit into the existing category structure. Since you added the content, it's best that you handle this task than having another editor take care of it for you.

Thank you for all of your work! Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I was actually planning on fixing those categories, but I'll take that into account, cheers. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Field Army (United Kingdom)

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Commander Field Army a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dormskirk was that an automated message? Because I was aware I needed to move CFA to a redirect on the main page, as the use of 'Field Army' was used on CFA, instead of an independent page. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi - The key point is that you should have moved the article to the new destination (filing a request to delete the redirect) rather doing a cut and paste. Dormskirk (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I was planning on deleting it, that's the part I'm confused about. Initially, I was going to keep both, but it was just a repeat so I transferred with a redirect. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
But you should have moved the article rather than cutting and pasting the material - your method means we have lost the article history. Dormskirk (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I actually wasn't aware about the history part. I saw the "be bold" part, and thought it wouldn't make a difference as long as I had left a redirect and fixed any double-redirects? Coldstreamer20 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please read my note above which explains why cut-and-paste moves are "undesirable". Dormskirk (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Noclador Reviews

Hi @Noclador, I've made a few graphics lately, and wanted to ask if you would be so kind as to "review" them, and let me know if anything needs to be fixed. I save ALL graphics on a USB, and have both the PSD (Photoshop) and PNG types, so I'm able to fix (almost) anything I've ever made. In order from older to newer: 1st UK Division in May 2021, 3rd UK Division in May 2021, 6th UK Division in May 2021, 3rd Commando Brigade (Royal Marines only), 4th Light Infantry BCT future, and the three new ones: CEMAS Effects Group, Special Operations Brigade, and No. 1 ISR Wing RAF. If you wouldn't mind checking these, that would be great! Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Leave United Kingdom Land Forces alone unless you want a block request, please

"United Kingdom Land Forces" does not equal "Land Forces" or "Commander-in-Chief Land Forces" of twenty years later. UKLF does not, did not, equal C in C LF which was not a command, but a post. Leave the command page alone, please, before you make any more major errors!! I have been informed I should seek WP:CR for a widescale restriction against your 20th-century mistakes: currently I am tempted. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So.. "United Kingdom Land Forces" is different from the "Land Forces" (post 1995)? It was my understanding the latter was a continuation of the former during the LandMark review. I'm aware that the post of 'Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces" was a commander, and not a "command", but could you help me with the explanation here? Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
UKLF and BAOR, up until 1994-95; Land Command, 1995-2008; Commander/CinC whatever Land Forces etc (not a command, British Army became too small to justify commands separate from the Staff in London), onwards. The LandMark review was a shuffling of organisations *inside* Land Command, 2003, and happened well before Land Command was disestablished, 2008. Did you carefully check all the dates involved? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Well you bring up a good point on "did [I] carefully check the dates". Indeed I did, though I will admit it was quite confusing as, I'll provide a page which I'm compiling for the officers of Field Army (note: the page name isn't correct, but it's a sandbox so disregard that): User:Coldstreamer20/List of senior officers of the United Kingdom Field Army. Now, the confusing part is that the post of "Commander, United Kingdom Field Army" was the predecessor to the current "Commander Field Army", however there is a confusing part here. The confusing part is that (my understanding) is that "UKFA" was held by the Deputy CiC, Land Forces and as Beevor said wasn't a "real field command". In 2003 it was re-created as above as "Commander Field Army, HQ Land Command". Then, in 2015 the really confusing part occurs when the post of "Commander Field Army" was re-established, but Land Forces was disestablished in 2008. So there is a major gap here and now that Land Command has disappeared in 2008, "Land Command" (I'm aware Land Command & Adjutant Gen. amalgamated into Land Forces). So, I'm confused on how the two "Land Forces" are actually different. Sorry for the super long message, but I needed to explain why I'm confused here. I see the continuation of the posts, but "Land Forces" seems the same as "Land Forces" to me. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
IT WAS NOT RECREATED. COULD NOT. "United Kingdom Field Army" DOES NOT EQUAL, IS NOT THE SAME AS "Field Army." "United Kingdom Land Forces," a full command, DOES NOT EQUAL, IS NOT THE SAME AS, "Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces," not a full command, twenty years later. You don't seem to grasp that UKLF does not equal Land Forces, not that UK Field Army up until 1994 DOES NOT equal "Field Army."
Two different sets of organisations with two different sets of names.
What are you talking about "two Land Forces?" After Land Command-as-a-command disappeared, the following organisms weren't quite commands. Similar to Log Exec in the New Zealand Army nowadays, halfway houses between staff branches and commands. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Ahhhh ok, I understood the separate parts, but couldn't connect them, thanks for the explanation. I think the main issue is that Mackie uses the title of "Land Forces" for ALL the deputy commanders. So I had an issue connecting the fact they are actually different. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Mackie is not a reliable source for designations of intermediate posts/commanders - often does not catch changes. Do not use him as a standalone source. Don't use him for anything except finding out middle initials. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ref tools?

Hi there @Dormskirk, I'll also tag @Rosguill and @Lennart97, do you guys know of any scripts/tools which can help with duplicated refs? For instance on one of my big articles, I've used the same ref several times (more than 12), but they are all separate citations. It takes forever to find and replace every-single-one, so I thought I would ask if you know of any tools which could help out? Coldstreamer20 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Try using WP:reFill. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, it's a life saver! I'd consider -15,654 a major time saver, thanks so much! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Apolo1991 I saw your message on the MilWiki project, I'm going to actually complete it later today, Cheers! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Army Strategic Command (United Kingdom)

Go and look at the carefully collected available notes at Army Strategic Command (United Kingdom) before you say that the command's main focus was reinforcement of Germany. It wasn't: it was the strategic reserve for worldwide duties. 12 Signal Group may have been focused on Germany, but please, don't mix that up with ASC!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, I'll re-word it, but Strategic Command was the reserve, and the brigade was tasked with supporting 1st British Corps. I just worded it incorrectly, I'll fix that thanks. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Coldstreamer20,

If you are going to tag your own user pages or pages that you have created and are the primary author of, it is more helpful to admins to tag them with {{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}} rather than simply tagging them with "delete". Tagging them with a more specific tag places the page in a more visible category. You can see all of the possible codes at the Criteria for Speedy Deletion page.

Tagging them only with "delete" place them in an "Unspecified" category and they are less likely to be acted on in a timely manner. Tagging them correctly just helps admins patrolling speedy deletion categories see what reason it is that pages are being tagged. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, will do! Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

License tagging for File:RAF Air Command.png

Thanks for uploading File:RAF Air Command.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Order of Battle of the Waterloo campaign

Information icon Hello, Coldstreamer20. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Order of Battle of the Waterloo campaign, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Coldstreamer20,

It would help if you would tag pages for speedy deletion correctly. It's not okay to say "Delete" and then make up your own reason. Please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so you are familiar with the accepted deletion criteria. In recent cases, the correct criteria is CSD G7 which is when the page creator requests the page deletion and they are the primary contributor to the page.

Tagging pages is much easier if you make use of Twinkle. When you use this program it will offer the possible options for deletion criteria which you can select from, which makes things easy. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Smartytag

Hi @SmartyPants22, I'm tagging you here to let you know I've updated a lot of the old/un-referenced information on (technically your page): Structure of the British Army. I've transferred a lot of the information from my "archive" page here if you need my refs and the full page I made, etc: User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the British Army in 2021. PLEASE let me know if there are any issues, like missing refs or issues with empty ref and such. Cheers, Coldstreamer20 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

⟨⟩== Ranger Regiment (United Kingdom) ==

Hello, @Coldstreamer20. I recognise what you say about people having "proved" points about the Selous Scouts, but frankly the NYT are full of caic, and just because a source is from a major newspaper, doesn't mean that it is true. Can I make my case to have that section removed by citing real facts and primary sources, as it incenses me that such a false name and false accusations are being made against that unit. Which, might I add, was majority black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleye1001 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eagleye1001:, keep in mind that Wikipedia is about WP:Verifiability, not truth, (give that a read). And keep the discussion going, but at Talk:Ranger Regiment (United Kingdom). I'm sure something can be worked out. - wolf 05:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
All I can do at this point is tag admins to go further here.. @Dormskirk & @Peacemaker67. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, although I seem to have been around for a very long time, I am not an admin. I will leave it to Peacemaker67 to comment. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I note that El C has placed the article under extended confirmed protection for three weeks (good call IMHO). Milhist coordinators have no special powers or duties regarding disputes. As an admin, I encourage both editors to discuss the matter on the talk page, including bringing reliable secondary sources to back up their arguments. I've placed it on my watchlist. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I covered the Selous Scouts on a few occasions in a dissertation I wrote on the Republic of Rhodesia. Thanks for looking into this, Peacemaker67. To be clear: I granted the protection request to apply WP:ECP to the Ranger Regiment (United Kingdom) page while routinely attending to WP:RFPP/I. El_C 10:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree with PM67, ECP was a good call by El C (and might've saved someone a trip to ANEW). That said, I believe the parties involved should take up a discussion on the article tp to resolve any issues, but as now, it doesn't appear that has happened yet. (fyi) - wolf 03:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Template:Foreign regiments of the French Imperial Army during the Napoleonic Wars

Information icon Hello, Coldstreamer20. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:Foreign regiments of the French Imperial Army during the Napoleonic Wars, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive_4&oldid=1063629110"