User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Re-Review of article

Hello,

Efforts have been made on the article you have tagged. If has met the standards for the tag to be removed, please do so. As always, further comments, suggestions and a re-rating are welcome. Please see James Henry Carpenter. Thank you Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

• News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list

• WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts

• Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map

• In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?

• Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Franz Neuhausen

Hi! Re recent Neuhausen GAR, I stumbled upon this newspaper article claiming Neuhausen was in the Austria-Hungary military during the WWI - no details unfortunately. The article is on a hunting rifle allegedly once owned by Neuhausen. I thought to drop this info here as a possible investigation lead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what else I can find. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And for what it's worth - the Spiegel article used already as a ref says he reached the rank of a major in the WWI.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

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) 13:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• News and notes: Spanish Wikipedia leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Artur Phleps

Sorry I was out for a few days and I just saw your note. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

• News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions

• In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing

• Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates

• Featured content: Life of 2π

• Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Wikipedia; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Hi! Thank you for kind words and encouragement, I certainly hope to do more re Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. I must admit I was inspired to take up the task (in my head at least) seeing WP:BORA, an even more comprehensive project, getting off the ground so well - in a great part thanks to your input. Speaking of Bora, I was wondering if there are any specific criteria for inclusion of key people. Specifically, if Francetić is included as the commanding officer of the Black Legion, perhaps Francetić's successor at the post, Rafael Boban, should be included too? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Good point about Boban, I'll add him. There is no specific criteria, as people, units, events come up, we're just adding them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

HMS Indefatigable (1784)

In your recent assessment of the article, you suggest that there are some uncited or unreferenced areas which need attention to move from C to B grade, but you did not identify them which makes it hard for editors to know what needs to be done to improve the article. Can you please take a few minutes to identify those areas which need citations so that they can be addressed. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• Featured content: A week of portraits

• Discussion report: Return of the Discussion report

• News and notes: "Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project?

• In the media: China blocks secure version of Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Operation Normandy

• Technology report: Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Edit completed on James Henry Carpenter

Hello,

GOCE edit (re-write) completed by Stfg. I really appreciated her efforts. When you have a chance, please review for a B rating. Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

G'day, can I suggest you take it to WP:MHA for a quicker response? There are heaps of experienced MILHIST editors there just waiting to assess articles against B Class. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SS Divisions

Hi,

Concernig your posts about 13. SS Division and 23. Diviusion I have comment. You put that it is Croatians divisions but 13. & 23. SS Division are Bosnikas divisons. Please correct it. Most members were Bosinaks from Bosnia. If you like you can contact me via e-mail amir.halep@gmail.com Greetings, from Amir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.140.217 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Amir, the sources (and the Germans) describe them in that way. I am aware the majority of the soldiers in the 13th SS Division were Bosnian Muslims, and that is reflected in the text. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 31st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In March, the 847th Regiment occupied the Adriatic islands of [[Rab]] and Pag]] without encountering any Partisan resistance. In the same month, the 846th Regiment conducted an

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 31st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XII Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Geographic region

Hi! Not wishing to mess up prose in the 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) article, I just wanted to let you know that the "Adriatic coast between Rijeka and Karlobag" is referred to as the Croatian Littoral (Hrvatsko primorje) unlike the rest of Croatia's coast. This is just to assist any research or use in the prose if you see that fit. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This is for the fantastic job you are doing in clearing out the Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-class checklists. Keep up the great work!. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

cheers, plenty to do there, hey? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

• News and notes: How Wikimedia affiliates are spending $8.4 million; PRISM scandal

• Featured content: Mixing Bowl Interchange

• In the media: VisualEditor will "change world history"

• Op-ed: The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons

• Discussion report: VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more

• Traffic report: Who holds the throne?

• Arbitration report: Two cases suspended; proposed decision posted in Argentine History

• WikiProject report: Processing WikiProject Computing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Contest

Hi. Yes, that's basically what I did. Going through the 12000 odd articles in that category I noticed that hundreds if not thousands of them do not actually need supporting materials but an update of their checklist. This is the case for all articles on US Navy ships for example because either infoboxes or photos (or both) had been added in the past but nobody updated the b-class checklist. So I went through those articles and updated the checklist (for all criteria if necessary), added task forces (again if necessary). If more users went through the category we could get a more realistic assessment of the number of articles actually needing improvements in the form of supporting materials. The number would drop rather quickly. As for the contest, I wasn't really sure where to add those articles. In my opinion there is not that much of a difference between filling out an incomplete b-class checklist and updating one that is clearly wrong. If you think, they shouldn't be part of that category or the contest as a whole, just tell me and I remove them. Have a nice day :) PINTofCARLING (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw that you posted on the drive's talk page as well and read the opinions expressed there. I removed the content in question. Have a good day. PINTofCARLING (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. I have found the same with quite a few of the HMS articles. Just wanted to make sure we are all on a level-playing field. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Serbia existed... in this occasion?

Can you tell me why this article isn't called The Holocaust on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia? Which Serbia is that? Serbia didn't existed then, right? --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's "Serbia existed...on this occasion" and "Serbia didn't exist then", WW. Trolling is below you. I consider this post is actually an indirect and rather ham-fisted attempt to circumvent the one-year ban on move discussions of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I'll see what the admins say. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, actally, i am tottally not interested in that old article, i am asking about this one, Holocaust in Serbia... Please, really, respond. As this article is NOT about holocaust in Serbia overall, throughout history, but only one specific event, when Serbia, as separate independant entity, didnt exist, right? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. On reflection, I've had a look at the talk page and I believe we discussed merging the content into a Holocaust in Yugoslavia article. If that's what you mean, I'm happy to do that based on the existing consensus on the talk page? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Rank MOS

Hi! It seems I got sucked into writing a fair portion of Action of 1 November 1944. There are several German ranks used in the article, but I have little idea how are they to be presented properly - translated, in original, both forms - and then in what order. Could you offer any advice (or point me to a MOS page)? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

G'day. Good work, neat little engagement that one, with gongs all round afterwards. Ranks done per previous articles that have got through FA/ACR. MisterBee1966 and I sort of worked out something that matches German grammar, so the German ranks are initially capitalised regardless of where they appear (like German nouns), British equivalents are capitalised per MOS. Glad to help. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I was fortunate enough to stumble upon an article fairly comprehensively covering the Pag Ghost Fleet which made writing a relatively simple affair. Come to think of it, you might find Hrčak database of scientific articles (maintained by University Computing Centre in Zagreb) a useful resource for Operation Bora articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

• Op-ed: Two responses to the 'Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons'

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles of the last week

• In the media: South African learners want Wikipedia; Editing of Israel topics

• WikiProject report: The Volunteer State: WikiProject Tennessee

• News and notes: Swedish Wikipedia's millionth article leads to protests; WMF elections—where are all the voters?

• Featured content: Cheaper by the dozen

• Discussion report: Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting

• Technology report: May engineering report published

• Arbitration report: The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding definite article

Hi! I'm puzzled about use of the definite article in front of acronyms. I noticed you wrote that the definite article is dropped when referring to units or forces by acronym and removed all of them, but now I see you're restoring those. Should I restore them in other articles where I stared to apply this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think my explanation was insufficient. The answer is complex, and relates to whether the acronym is being used as an adjective or as a noun, as well as whether it starts a sentence or not. Sorry if I have bum-drummed you. I think you will get the sense of what I mean by looking at what I do with the c/e. English is truly a bastard language, and the rules are often a bit rubbery. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Agree on that aspect of English, plus being a native speaker of Croatian does not help at all because it lacks any concept of indefinite or definite articles that might help understanding how English articles work. It's all a set of rules where those exist and trial and error where the rules are, as you put it, rubbery. From what I can see so far, if the acronym is used at the start of a sentence it does not require the definite article, regardless of word type, otherwise it does, unless it is used as an adjective.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to nag you like this, but what happens if an acronym is at the beginning of the main clause, itself following an initial temporal clause? You just copyedited two such instances and those appear conflicting to me: "On 1 May, the HV overran the..." and "Three months later, on 4 August, HV initiated..." and I have no clue why there's a difference in structure there. Also, I observed that the acronyms placed at the beginning of sentences have no article in front of them, but it is nonetheless used in "The UNCRO Ukrainian battalion..." What did I miss there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No prob. The first one I missed, I've fixed it. The last one is still a bit clunky, but it is essentially about being an adjective. UNCRO, Ukrainian, and battalion are all being used as adjectives in this context, and I wasn't very happy with the sentence when I did the c/e. I'm not explaining it very well, am I... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry I believe I'm much clearer on the issue nonetheless. Thanks for the review, the copyedits and, of course, a grammar lesson. I believe I will now be able to improve in that department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are cordially invited..

G'day to you, good Sir, long time no read. To the point: in case you're interested, I believe your familiarity with the WWII Balkans source material might be useful over at the Istrian Exodus article. Truth be told, I've pretty much forgotten much of what the sources have to say, and, being on "vacation" (I should probably just declare myself semi-retired) I have no time to re-research it all. Its another Balkans military flamer issue (this time "Yugoslavs vs. Italians") that could benefit from the neutral input of one of my sockpuppet proxies. Best regards -- Director (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I think I'll pass. I'm driving work through Operation Bora these days rather than randomly picking fights... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to pick a fight either, the waters were calm before Silvio's new changes. The Syria thing, well, I should probably know better by now.. Have fun with Bura.. -- Director (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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) 08:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

• Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week

• In the media: Daily Dot on Commons and porn; Jimmy Wales accused of breaking Wikipedia rules in hunt for Snowden

• Recent research: Most controversial Wikipedia topics, automatic detection of sockpuppets

• News and notes: Election results released

• Discussion report: Privacy policy, X!'s edit counter, old rangeblocks, and the Article Incubator

• Featured content: Wikipedia in black + Adam Cuerden

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fashion

• Arbitration report: Argentine History closed; two cases remain suspended

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in November 1942, and as the SS-''Freiwilligen-Karstwehr Battailon'',{sfn|Kaltenegger|2008|p=84}} it spent the first six months of 1943 training in Austria.{{sfn|Williamson|2004|p=4}} Following

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMAS Inverell may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• liberated prisoners of war to HMAS Maidstone off Makassar, Dutch East Indies in September 1945]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DTTR

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. WhiteWriter^speaks 22:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It was quotation from the article, not other language... :) All best. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

how the hell would I know that? You reverted my revert of a now blocked proxy IP with a non-English edit summary. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

		June 2013 backlog reduction drive
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for placing second in the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Silver Wiki. Anotherclown (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Straight to the Pool Room! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

• In the media: Jimmy Wales is not an Internet billionaire; a mass shooter's alleged Wikipedia editing

• Featured content: Queen of France

• WikiProject report: Puppies!

• News and notes: Wikipedia's medical collaborations gathering pace

• Discussion report: Snuggle, mainpage link to Wikinews, 3RR, and more

• Technology report: VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series

• Traffic report: Yahoo! crushes the competition ... in Wikipedia views

• Arbitration report: Tea Party movement reopened, new AUSC appointments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Sir, I come from Zh wikipedia, I am surprised at your contributions. Thanks to you, we have more references to realize Croatia and Yugoslav, these are very rare in china. Ai6z83xl3g (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! All the best to you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Something that might interest you

G'day, nice work with the 21st at ACR. I added a few suggestions, but nothing major. Anyway, if you ever finding yourself looking for something different to write about, over the past four and half years I have been working on An Unofficial Units of the Australian Army Wikiproject. If there is anything there that takes your fancy, please take one. The AWM has some resources that offer a good starting point here (although I try to get the unit history where possible also). Anyway, I hope you have a good Sunday. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Being a croweater, I noticed that the 10th, 32nd, 48th and 50th are at B, and the 43rd doesn't exist yet. I might have a crack at getting them to GA at some stage (alongside the 27th), it also might be nice to get the 10th to FA before 25 April 2015. I have copies of The Fighting 10th, The Story of a Battalion (48th) and Freeman's Second to None and Hurcombe's Hungry Half-Hundred, so they will help. If you get to them before me, I'd be happy to help out with the refs I have. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I'm currently posted to Adelaide, so I've been doing a bit of work on the SA units recently: I updated the 48th and 50th last month; they would probably be close to GA at the moment; if you wanted to give them a little nudge in the right direction that would be great. The 10th is probably in a similar state as well, as I spent a bit of time at the SA state library when I first arrived down, but a few tweaks here and there wouldn't go amiss. The 27th is possibly ready for A-class, but it was awhile ago that I took it through GAN, so it could probably do with a fresh set of eyes, too. I've just finished the 33rd, 34th and 54th Bns also, so they are probably close to GA (although they are NSW units). I'm a Queenslander by birth, so I'm very keen to get 15th Battalion to B class this month (I'm waiting on the book to come from the work library), but my Dad's side of the family is from WA, so the 11th, 16th and 28th Bns are next in my sights. I'm also very keen to get Grandad's battalion – 2/3rd Battalion – to GAN eventually also. Finally, I'd like to fix the 25th/49th issue: these could quite easily be stand lone articles, rather than being redirects. I will probably look to do the 38th Bn when I move to Victoria next year, so at this stage, I don't have designs on 43rd Bn for a bit, so if you are keen to start something anew, it might be the article for you (I can add in the information from Festberg if you don't have it). Anyway, have a good one; I look forward to seeing what you come up with when you get to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Albanian names

Why Albanian names, should not be in infobox Albanians are 97% of the population, Serb are 0.7%. [1]. Albanian language is the official. --Sokac121 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All I did was make the infobox order consistent with the lead order. The lead order is per WP:LEAD, and the title of the article. Obviously, I understand there is a dispute about the name, however WP operates under WP:COMMONNAME for article titles, and I see on the talk page that the last time a WP:RM was conducted, it remained at its current name. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ridiculous to have Serbian names and they do not even live there. This is not the 1999th years time has changed. Serbia no longer has an impact on Kosovo. Articles need to switch over the language of the majority. Sadly nationalists not give that the Albanian names are together with Serbian.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a matter WP deals with via WP:COMMONNAME. I doubt the Albanian will become the common name any time soon, given the amount that has been written about the Battle of Kosovo Polje. Regardless, this matter should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Destroyed interior of Senta synagogue.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Destroyed interior of Senta synagogue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Partisan gallows in Novi Sad.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Partisan gallows in Novi Sad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

• Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project

• WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales

• Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south

• Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

• Featured content: The week of the birds

• Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Seven Enemy Offensives

Thanks for the catch. When I reverted the vandalism, I didn't notice the non-RS reference. Thanks for the catch!Wzrd1 (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

no worries! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Totenkopf und Edelweis

Have you seen this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

yep. Horrific copyright violation. But I do know about it, and I've had a look (as far as my crap German and Google Translate can take me)... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I own the book and if you need some help with translations feel free to ping me. I started researching a bit on Otto Kumm. I may want to work on his article in the near future. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have the English version of his book on the 7th SS which I was going to use for his time as Phleps CoS and as div comd, I'll chip in where I can. Interesting career. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix

• Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced

• Featured content: Documents and sports

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger 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 GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 15:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia flamewars

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion

• Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more

• News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India

• Traffic report: Gleeless

• Featured content: Engineering and the arts

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

Hi! Just noticed the 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger article and thought to ask if the 3-4 November 1944 Battle of Kućibreg (Cucibreg in Italian) involved that particular unit. Recently I stumbled on this article saying the 2nd Brigade of the 43rd Istria Division of the Partisans supported by Slovene partisans from Koper area and Italian partisans organised in "Alma Vivoda" battalion fought a battle then and there sustaining a loss of 120 killed in action. Unfortunately the article only says that the opposing force was German, offering no further details. The article appears to cover an annual commemoration of the battle (2011), and it appears to have made its way into newspapers because it was attended by then Croatian President Mesić. Apparently, the annual event caught more attention since - the following year it was attended by former Slovene President Kučan. ([2]) Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gday Tom, relying on Google Translate, I didn't see any indication the 24th SS was involved, but that might just be the Google interface. Any particular reason you thought they might have been involved? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The articles provide no hint of identity of the German force. I just remembered reading about the commemoration of the battle (it was in the news after Mesić attended) when I read the article on the 24th division. What made me suspect that the 24th division might be the German force referred to at the commemoration was 24th division article info that the unit performed anti-Partisan operations including those in Istria in November 1944 - fitting the Battle of Kućibreg perfectly. Mind you, I have zero sources identifying the German force at Kućibreg as the 24th division - this may be just a coincidence and involve an entirely different unit. I posted the note as a heads-up only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy. I'll keep it in mind if it comes up elsewise. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Bruce

Thank you for your hurrying up in my review's cooling off period, and hence its status has been decided. Inventively, the cooling off period I recommend there (pursuant to your comment) would seem like intuitively recommendable practice for politicians and history which anyone who's read 1984 or seen an adaptation thereof will be particularly careful to ensure WP:NPOV and minimal WP:CONTROVERSY, which you seem to avoid well. Of course, there's no point saying there's a cooling off period, if the person calling for it doesn't mention it, I apologise for that. - Adam37 Talk 07:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Mate, you're barking up the wrong tree. I haven't had anything to do with the Bruce article. You pulling my leg, chief? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

24th Waffen

Hi Peacemaker 67. I have taken the liberty of finishing up the GA review for this article, as your original reviewer is blocked. There's a couple of items that need your attention before the article can be passed. Talk:24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger/GA1. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

The article 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military History A-Class Medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History WikiProject, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal for your outstanding work on Artur Phleps, Helmuth Raithel and Operation Southeast Croatia, promoted to A-Class between June and July 2013. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AR! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

The article 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia under Nazi occupation maps

I think you're mistaken.

I have made JVuO control map because I was asked to, it's based on some article in TIME magazine and indeed doesn't seem too reliable. Honestly, I don't care whether it will be published in Wikipedia.

But when I was making this map I was trying to keep it accurate. It looks similar, but it's supposed to be based on reliable sources. Hellerick (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I am sure that you have undertaken to do both of those tasks in good faith, and thank you for your contributions. The first map is highly dubious, and despite the source being Time, its age and the subsequent scholarship post-war draw its credibility into serious question. The second one uses labels that are contentious at best, in particular "Serbia". I am surprised that you weren't directed to this map which has much more accurate labels, no doubt there was a reason for that. The merging of the German-"occupied" areas of the Independent State of Croatia with so-called "Serbia" is problematic, and the lack of major towns/cities means less context. Montenegro had a distinct political arrangement. I would be willing to work with you using reliable sources to improve the map if you are interested, but I think some detailed discussion and some amendments are needed before the map is included in articles. Thanks for bringing this matter here for discussion. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, suh! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

• Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change

• Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview

• Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia

• News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013

• Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes

• Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!

• Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Yugoslavia in World War II" article

Hello
I just wondered if, considering your expertise on Yugoslavia during the war, whether you might be willing to start the article "Yugoslavia in World War II"? (It's currently a redirect). It's an important problem with Wiki's coverage of Europe in WWII by country. I was thinking of creating a stub with copied text from Yugoslavia#World War II, but I'm afraid it's not an area I have the expertise on!
All the best! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, the current main article for this topic is Yugoslav Front, which is limited to the period 1941-45, so doesn't really cover the period 1939 - April 1941 except as background. During this period, Yugoslavia was neutral. Are you thinking that there needs to be an overarching article covering the whole period of the war? I can see the logic in that idea. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's just to summarise the content of the dozen-or-so specialist articles, I think it's important that there is a one-stop introduction article to the area in the period - things like the Free Yugoslav forces & government also deserve a mention for example. Yugoslavia is, after all, more complicated than most. At the same time too, it's a good opportunity to bring non-military aspects of the war together (for instance, the Holocaust, persecution of various minorities, civilian "experience" etc.) which do not yet have an individual article, but need to be placed in context. Are you happy to have a go? All the best, --Brigade Piron (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a stub/start class article with material taken from other Wikipedia articles. Though I hope it provides a basic framework, I'm certainly not proud of it though I hope it is better than nothing. If you could add anything to it, I'd be much appreciated. All the best, Brigade Piron (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We dont have Marshal rank

I kingdom of Serbia and Yugoslavia wasn't wasn't rank Marshal but Voivode. Its former Serbian rank that enter in Yugoslavia. Three Voivoda's was in Kingdom of Yugoslavia was Stepa Stepanović, Živojin Mišić and Petar Bojović. Original was 5 since first Radomir Putnik died 1917 before creation of Yugoslavia and last Louis Franchet d'Espèrey had honor promotion. And please don't revert my edits i am longer here then you, plus i am rollbacker on Serbian wikipedia, things that i edit i am 100% sure that they are true. Translate form here and you will know what i talk about. ^{Snake bgd} 08:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Listen chief, I couldn't care less how long you've been on wiki. Produce a reliable source for your edit, which I have quite reasonably challenged. The policy is WP:BRD, not Bold, Revert, then Tell The Other Editor to Back Off Because You 100% Know What You Are Talking About. You saying you "know" is about as useful to an encyclopaedia as an ashtray is on a motorbike (and it's WP:OR) and pointing me at sr WP is WP:CIRCULAR. So get a reliable source and cite it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And what is the dispute exactly about, if I may ask? All I see is this series of edits.
That passage in Serbian Wikipedia is sourced to this book, which should be reliable, but I haven't seen its contents either. Since I also didn't hear about the term "Marshal" used in Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the previous version was also unreferenced, Snake bgd is most likely right. No such user (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care whether Snake bgd is "most likely right", I want to know if Snake bgd has a reliable source (to be included in the article, not in Serbian wikipedia or in his own mind). It is fair enough that I want a source for his edit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've got me interested, I'd suggest there are multiple reliable sources for the description of Putnik's rank as a Field Marshal, including Thomas' Armies in the Balkans 1914–1918 p. 12, Hart's The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War, p. 91, and Tucker's Who's Who in Twentieth Century Warfare, p. 261. Numerous sources refer to him being appointed voivode by King Peter, but is not the same thing as saying that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had the rank of voivode which took the place of Field Marshal in other armies. It seems to me that voivode was an honorific title awarded for outstanding performance in battle etc, not a formal military rank. This impression is supported by the fact that there were other voivodes such as Kosta Pećanac and Jovan Grković-Gapon.

I don't think this is entirely the issue of sourcing, but more of an editing consensus. Surely the two terms are equivalent -- it is an issue whether we should link the translation (Field Marshal) or the original title (voivode) (or maybe both); the latter, while technically more accurate, is also ambiguous, because, as you noted, it has been used as a technical or honorary title before and after WWI.
As far as I understood the sr. wiki paragraph (not particularly trustful in general, but this one is sourced), the title of voivode (vojvoda) was only honorary after WWI, and no active officer ever achieved it -- it was assigned only to the four WWI generals, d'Esperey, and the Kings. Thus, it is sort of moot whose standard was File:Flag of rank of Marshal of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg, if it had never been flown (except maybe by the kings in their role as supreme commander). No such user (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All anyone (including me) can expect is that a source is used, and that it is reliable. What really irritates me is when editors say "they know it's right", edit the page, but don't provide a source on the article in question even when reverted. Also, if only the WWI generals were appointed, how were they voivodes of Yugoslavia? The source needs to state that quite clearly, otherwise they are Serbian voivodes only. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Gratitude

G'day (likewise!) Just wanted to thank you for your article which included my uncle Ken Carson in his escape from Stalag18 with the assistance of the very brave partisans. Your article dramatically added to my understanding of this well loved uncle; I wish I had asked him so many questions....

I have a copy of an official German POW postcard sent to my aunt at Tamworth (NSW) advising that he had been captured but was being well treated (?!)

I think that it would add significantly to articles such as these, if a paragraph could be added about their lives post war; readers are always interested in the personal aspect of these remarkable stories and it just doesn't finish at the end of the episode. Admittedly always difficult to impossible to get!

Having the soldier's numbers allow me to look up his war record at the Aus War Memorial with great accuracy; thank you for including it!

Obviously the life of an editor is not easy, with plenty of egos out there wanting to cut you down; pity they didn't come up with the idea in the first place...

Take care, Dig, take care (and again, thanks)

gweloborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gweloborn (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

my pleasure. If we could identify reliable secondary sources for the later lives, we could add some more detail. Mostly we would have to rely on newspaper stories (usually around ANZAC Day). Have you ever seen your uncle's later life featured in a newspaper article? I have a signed copy of Ralph Churches book (I believe Ralph is still alive...), and he probably mentions your uncle a few more times, but there isn't much at all about his colleagues from the escape (in later life I mean). Have you read it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice on "Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two" ISBN 978-0-230-27830-1

Hello Peacemaker67, I am currently enlarging the Spanish article on the chetniks and tried (unsuccesfully so far) to get hold of Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two. I tried requesting a few chapters from WP:RX but it seems no one has access to this particular book. I am considering whether it would be worth it to buy it but it is a bit expensive. So I thought I would ask you as you already have a copy and maybe you would not mind sharing your opinion about it. Is it really worth the nearly 70 euros I would have to pay for it? Thank you in advance!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Chetniks are concerned, there are good chapters by Jareb, Baric and Hoare picking apart the "resistance legend" of the Chetniks, the relationship between the NDH authorities and the Chetniks, and the central role of Serbs in the Partisans, and also a chapter by Lazic on the re-evaluation and attempted rehabilitation of Mihailovic, and they are all very good academic pieces with comprehensive footnoting and solid sources. Hoare's chapter covers some of the same ground as his Genocide and Resistance in Bosnia, but has some fresh insights too. It is a very good book, Ramet and Listhaug's intro and conclusion draw the threads together well, and there are two comprehensive indexes. However, 70 euros seems a bit steep. I forget what I paid for it, but it must be cheaper than that on Amazon or Book Depository, surely? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite interesting then, I will have to think it over. I am afraid 70 euros is probably the cheapest price you can get it for... Thanks a lot for your opinion on the book!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)