User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plz help us

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of state visits to Iran#improve. Thanks. Shahin (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Task Force 90, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Fletcher. 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) 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

um...

I would think that as an admin, you'd know better than to remove project talk page comments. theWOLFchild 21:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5th Air Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Floresti. 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) 11:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces

While doing an article about the Operational Structure of the Polish Land Forces, I found out that the Polish Armed Forces have undergone a massive restructuring in 2014-2015 which saw the four military branches eliminated and reduced to Inspectorates. They also added two new Inspectorates: see here. Now all the army, air force and navy units are directly under a new command named: Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych (General Command of Armed Forces Types??). The Polish article is here: pl:Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych. During operations the the units are commanded by the pl:Dowództwo Operacyjne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych. With this new structure all the articles about the Polish Armed Forces are outdated and factually wrong. I am still doing the Operational Structure article for the units that once were part of the army, but I don't want to rewrite the main articles as I don't yet understand what the actually tasks of the Inspectorates are... they are still overseeing the various branches, but it seems none of these Inspectorates except for the logistic one (Inspektorat Rodzajów Wojsk) has any units. So what is their function? How is the structure now? If you have some time can you have a look at this? Thank you, noclador (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And I just realized that the article title Operational Structure of the Polish Land Forces is now wrong too, was this isn't anymore the Operational Structure... but probably most likely the listing of Army associated units. How to rename it? Any suggestions? noclador (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The key is what this article [1] calls the 'strategic triad': the General Staff, the Armed Forces General Command (your first one, hereforth DG RSZ), and the Armed Forces Operational Command (hereforth DO RSZ). Well really, the second two: the DG RSZ is the raise-train-and-maintain command - the word 'preparation' is in the article above, and is key. They prepare the forces, and hand them over to DO RSZ (think UK PJHQ, or the German equivalent) for operations. Poland has done something quite unique and severed the service branches from direct contact with the Chief of Defence; now it seems the General Inspectors have to go thru Commander DG RSZ to get to the higher echelons. What may be even more unique is that the two commands may both be under lieutenant generals, rather than DG RSZ being under a four-star, which is what I was expecting. That means they may both carry roughly equal weight, because seemingly *all* the field forces report directly to Commander DG RSZ without going thru the service General Inspectors!! The General Inspectors, if I guess this right, would be the senior advisors to the Commander DG RSZ on their forces, but basically be staff advisors, not commanders. Let me do a little more checking to firm this up a bit though. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I know the German model pretty well... There the inspectors maintain, train, develop, equip, etc. their branches and the moment an operation begins hand the troops over to either the German operational command or a NATO command (just as in the US - where the Joint Chiefs manage their branches, but the Unified Combatant Command handle the operations). What I don't get is how all units of the Polish Armed Forces now report directly to one command, bypassing all the Inspectorates. As for the army units: I finished the article I set out to do, and now do an update of the OrBat chart. noclador (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
They don't (quite) bypass the Inspectorates, because the Inspectorates report to the same commander - DG RSZ. But because the Inspectorates are on the same command level as their individual formations (divisions, flotillas etc) - one level below Commander DG RSZ - they have no command authority anymore. In Kiwi/British terms, Comd DG RSZ probably has delegated full command from CDF - including the ability to reorganise subordinate formations. Almost always he'll be acting on the Inspectors' advice, but they have - seemingly - no command authority over their formerly subordinate formations. Effectively there is no 'Operational Structure' of the Polish LF anymore, and I would recommend, because you focus on the right-now, that you delete or redirect that title. Instead we need a Armed Forces General Command (Poland) article, and if you want the administrative list of Polish LF formations, it would be either in that article, or in the subordinate 'Structure of the Polish Armed Forces General Command'. The operational side? You would be creating the Armed Forces Operational Command (Poland) article, and its subordinate deployed formations in Mali, (Afghanistan?) etc. But that has very little to do with the Army Inspectorate anymore. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

New diagram request

@Noclador: - could you do a new diagram: higher-level? General Staff at the top, with AFGC on one side, with this list - [2] of Inspectorates and formations below it, and AFOC on the other, with - Mali, Afghanistan, etc - under it on the other. I can ferret out a list of operational deployments if you wish. So if you like there you could say are now two 'services': preparation (AFGC) and operations (AFOC). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can. Give me a few days. Also as for the graphic you just removed: as far as the divisions are concerned - those parts are still accurate, so I will break them out and insert them next to the respective text. Also: besides the German, British and Polish Army structure articles I did the same for Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces and did an extensive update of the Structure of the Spanish Army, as both had/have some major reforms in 2015/16. cheers, noclador (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please go ahead with reinserting the division sections - great idea. Regarding the 'Operational Structure of the British Army' I'm not sure it is anymore the operational structure of the British Army. That's the deployed groupings under JFC and PJHQ. List of units of the British Army probably describes the content more correctly. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Reinserted the divisions. re. "Operational Structure" indeed that is now wrong as an article title. Same as for Poland... Should we move Operational Structure of the Polish Land Forces to Structure of the Polish Land Forces? Or do we have a better title? Almost all other articles like this are named like "Structure of the xx Army" i.e. Structure of the Canadian Army, Structure of the Norwegian Army etc. What is your take on this? noclador (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I went around standardising them, partially to avoid US/UK disagreements if we used 'Organisation/Organization'. Yes, go with Structure of the Polish Land Forces, but that means you have to bring in the Inspector's departments, third line depot support, personnel offices, etc, etc, which are all important, but not often seen in our articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Also suggest the British one becomes List of units of the British Army 2016. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I reported you at ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks yes Krzyhorse22 I've responded there. I've tried from the wording of my response there to make clear that I'm not particularly angry, but I am somewhat concerned that you do rather shoot your mouth off, which can cause offense. The content issue is separate and can easily be fixed through the WP:BRD and talkpage discussion process if people are reasonable and patient. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed some outdated and irrelevant info but you readded that. That is clearly useless info for that specific article
  • I often add general statements in my comments but this is not shooting my mouth, it is indisputable info that I already know from the back of my head. I don't do it to offend anyone but just to remind others. A time will come when everyone will talk that way in order to pass info around.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • One last thing. I'm not anti-Australian or anti-New Zealand. My grandmother is Australian, she is buried in Australia, and I have relatives in every city there. I also have friends in New Zealand.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Firstly, thanks for your message; I appreciate you coming back to leave me one.
      • I must avoid the use of the word 'mate', it seems, as you find it disrespectful, but that is what I would lead with in regard to your Afghan MOD comment. I won't mention it again. How about this, "Buddy, don't you understand things in Afghanistan don't work as well within proper formal channels as the U.S.? The reasons why Afghan defence ministers get removed or not removed is key to help understanding the complex politics of the country. On the ANBP, compare the US DOD page and the Afghan MOD page. Is there an enormous list of referenced programmes in the Afghan MOD entry? No. How the hell are we supposed to build such an enormous list of referenced programmes up if people remove what programmes are written down? Because there's no History of the Afghan Ministry of Defence all the historical content has to go there, for now. We don't remove information because it deals with five years ago - otherwise we wouldn't have a list of defence ministers at the page. Anyway, that's a content dispute and should you be worried about it it can be resolved through the normal channels.
      • Your 'add[ing] general statements' is the core of what got you into trouble with me, and, I should note, closing admin commented on your very last comment on the AN/I that your comparison with 'The Shining' was unhelpful, and specifically cited WP:NPA. So it's not just my judgment that your 'general statements' can offend. Honestly, I think you've got a good record, and potential as an editor here, but with the least amount of malice I can possibly convey, "it might be better to stop adding the general statements." I tried shouting that at you at the top of my voice; here I'm trying to say it in a low-key way. Please, kindly, consider this request. As I said, you can do it freely at any one of ten thousand other chat sites etc - but here it's had a repeated record of causing offence.
      • Your last statement regarding your Kiwi/Aussie connections may be intended to be friendly. I'm sure you meant no particular harm by it. But this is the internet. It's really very difficult to convey shades of meaning across thousands of kilometres and cultural gulfs. Depending on the way I was considering your actions, given our previous interactions, I might be reassured and thought of it as a friendly statement - seemingly your intention - I might think you were trying to show off your knowledge of Aust/NZ, or I might think you were being condescending. Certainly, because of your previous interactions with Aust/NZ editors, it has the potential to be thoroughly misinterpreted / taken as hostile.
      • For that reason too, trying to add comments about your links/regard for any particular community may not have the effect you intended. Again, maybe best to stick to the facts of a situation, and comment solely on the references, facts, etc, and if you are going to spend considerable amounts of time dealing with references, might be good to re-read WP:No Original Research and WP:BURDEN regarding what the rules are. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I remove and rearrange content based on WP:Relevance, which states: "On Wikipedia, relevance is a consideration whether a fact or detail in an article is useful to the reader or is out of scope of the article. If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article. This does not mean it can not be mentioned in some other article. Mentioning things that are irrelevant to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the things mentioned undue weight." For example, I improved this article but you wrongly reverted all my edits.[3] My reasons are as follow: 1) an image with a tourist posing should not be displayed in the infobox, plus 8 images are too many for this article; 2) the 2012 image (the army race) shows less of the airport than the 2014 one; 3) the other image in which US soldiers are providing security inside the city makes readers believe that US soldiers are still patrolling Kandahar streets when in fact they no longer do that and they only did that in rare cases; 4) the descriptions after the listed names under "Notable people from Kandahar" are useless. People only come to Kandahar to read about the city. In most other WP articles only links are shown without the descriptions.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • With my last comment I implied that Australia is my 2nd home and that I view it as my grandmother. I felt like stating that because almost everyone engaged with me were from Australia. The issue between you and me is that you want to enforce your ideas on me and this results to unncessary conflicts. You threatened to block me simply because we have some differences. That's abusing admin power. It's like a police officer threatening unarmed civlians with his weapon. That's the reason I mentioned The Shining film. That film is about a man who is dealing with alcohol withdrawl, it's not something to be offended by because it does that to everyone. When I show you a WP rule you disagree with it, like the deleted info by the Afghan embassy. That embassy completely removed its error but you attempted to argue that such invalid info should be considered as still existing. You may view it that way but in actuality the info was intentionally eraced, deleted or removed. To find a meaningful solution to our differences, I think we should involve a 3rd party, a non-Australian is more preferable.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Honestly you are begining to annoy me. There is no rule that says anything of the sort you claim regarding the 300,000 figure. Please, again, read WP:NOR, which is the relevant guideline. If you think there is a rule there which disallows my conduct, quote it to me. Any rules you think I've breeched, quote them to me - we'll get on much quicker. Regarding Kandahar, your comments should be at the article talk page; I'll reinsert some of the photos but the text you removed about notable people is useful, in my view. Regarding your entire last paragraph of your above message, really, please, just remain WP:CIVIL. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Buckshot06. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22's edits

Hello, Buckshot. Maybe you will be interested to say your opinion at Talk:Mohammed Omar#Unsourced POV pushing by User:Sundostund. I assume you are more experienced in dealing with this user, and in Afghan-related subjects in general. Just to know - I have no intention to enter an edit war with him over this. --Sundostund (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks yes Krzyhorse22 I've replied there. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. You may be interested to look into his latest round of edits - [4]... As I've said above, I'm not going into an edit war with him. I'm not going to get blocked over this stupidity. So, you and other people (especially your fellow admins and users familiar with Afghanistan) need to think what to do about this. --Sundostund (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message, Buckshot06. I'd really hate to get blocked, especially because of something ludicrous like this. That would happen eventually if I started to revert his edits, it would really be useless with him restoring them in a matter of minutes. IMHO, this user needs to be "educated" by admins and users who are far more familiar in the Afghan-related subjects than me. Personally, I don't believe that warnings, etc will result in a change of his behavior. In almost 6 years on English Wikipedia, I've saw my share of users similar to him and, unfortunately, it rarely ends up in a good way (without long-term blocks, etc)... By the way, please see one of his latest edits - [5]. Just look at it, and you'll understand what I mean. --Sundostund (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

USS Decatur

I just saw your edits. Terms like "may have joined" and "may be a part of" don't sound very encyclopaedic. Why add unsourced info you're uncertain of? Why not just research it a little more? (Just a question, I'm not trying to make a big thing out of it.) - theWOLFchild 10:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the main purpose of my edits is to remove the WP:NONDEF categories from all these escorts. For each ship, I usually do some checking around, but I'm not always successful. Hey, also, thanks for all your edits around here. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Buckshot! I came over too brusque this morning, my sincere apologies. I had been editing 16 hours straight after a 2 month layoff. You know how it can grab you again after a significant time not editing. My point was and is to give KH some space, so I can get to develop a relationship with him/her, and for them to gain trust in me. I think some of the issues may be around pressure and the feeling that the user has to instantly react. Hence any on-wiki work over the next few days should probably be avoided. You can help me significantly in many ways. For instance, I am working in the dark regarding what articles KH has been working on. If you can give me any, I can pagewatch them and head off any potential issues. I'm probably crazy for mentoring people but it gives me a sense of being useful around here. And if can stop further stress and angst that I know conflict causes, in you, KH, whoever, then that's enough. Kind regards Simon Irondome (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

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

39th Infantry Division (Turkey)
added a link pointing to Maras
War in Somalia (2009–present)
added a link pointing to Al-Shabaab

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Buckshot06. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kges1901 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

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

6th Air Army
added a link pointing to S-300
7th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)
added a link pointing to Ukrainian Front
List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–57
added a link pointing to Kirov
No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC
added a link pointing to Army Reserve

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

!!!!!

look, you do not have to do something here, without having to calculate the old wars mean that there is no Egyptian army because no history = no present, remove the image from a part (military leadership) I put the picture in the SCAF, image of the soldier border guards you claim that American, What evidence? , remove the Structure i don't know why I removed what is your objective, (Overview) Why remove a large part of it, please I don't want to enter into a conflict with you.RabeaMalah (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to speak to me. However you should also contribute at WT:MILHIST#Egyptian Armed Forces. I do have to do something here; the article violates about five major editing guidelines in the state it was in. First, the modern state of Egypt is not the same state as the premodern, ancient polity, and should not be in the same article when that contributes to the article being too large (WP:SIZERULE). Check the picture caption on Commons; you'll see it's of a U.S. sailor or marine aboard a U.S. ship, taken by a U.S. armed forces photographer - that's my evidence. The overview should be at the beginning of the article, not half way down, and contains historical information which should be at the history section. You've crammed each field army structure chart into the article when this is about the entire armed forces - it's too detailed for what should be an overview article. Finally, I removed a lot of text that did not make sense. Hope that explains my edits. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Please make your further comments at WT:MILHIST#Egyptian Armed Forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Question on subgroups

Hi, I had question and I was hoping you could help. What is involved in creating a task force or similar sub-project type group that would focus on one very specific topic/subject? Can anyone just start one up and ask people to join? Or do you need to propose it on the WikiProject page that covers the topic/subject (if there is one) and get consensus and/or a minimum number of editors to join? Or something else altogether? Thanks. - theWOLFchild 04:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Honestly I would put together a small group via talkpages for the first few weeks, and then come back to reconsider a subgroup later. The trend has been that Milhist taskforces hardly see any activity whatsoever, with the major exception of 'Majestic Titan.' Thus the coordinators have for many years kept all the taskforce talkpages redirected to the main talk page (through that has recently changed, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Task_Force_categories). For the formal rules, ask re Milhist at the coordinators' talkpage, and more generally at WP:Wikiproject. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - theWOLFchild 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

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

Central Group of Forces
added links pointing to Rear and Shuya
Third Army (Egypt)
added links pointing to 4th Armored Division and Operation Badr
4th Rifle Corps (Soviet Union)
added a link pointing to 3rd Army

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Featured article

Do you want to nominate the Egyptian armed forces to Featured article or what?.RabeaMalah (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing that at present. The article will need a lot of cleanup before that happens. Compare for example United States Marine Corps and have a look at the differences. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

115th Fighter Wing

The 115th really needs a split. I'll work on this in the next week or so. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-ADD

With all due respect to you, you remove almost half of the article why you remove the old army, I know very well that consolidate, start from Muhammad Ali but there are army and navy was established in the era of the pharaohs, we are talking about military history in Egypt not talking about the consolidate of the army, I think that the meaning of the word foundation is to establish the structural and organizational model of the army not the foundation out of nowhere. Regards to you.RabeaMalah (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the Egyptian Armed Forces, with a focus on the history of the present entity (Muhammad Ali's Egypt, Kingdom of Egypt, Republic of Egypt, ARE). WP:Reliable Sources repeatedly say that the modern force can only be traced back to Muhammad Ali. There's a whole other article available for Military of ancient Egypt and that article is linked in the very first line of the main part of the article. I have copied this discussion to Talk:Egyptian Armed Forces and I will make all following replies there. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

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

Carrier Strike Group 2
added a link pointing to James A. Winnefeld
List of Soviet Army divisions 1989–91
added a link pointing to Pokrovka
Nikolay Oleshev
added a link pointing to Chukotka
Primorsky Military District
added a link pointing to Port Arthur

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force

I did not finish my work yet, but something unexpected happens, so I was forced to leave the article and go.--RabeaMalah (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sky Harbor Air National Guard Base

Would you be able to restore this (or at least one that has none of the offending text) so I could strip it down to the bare essentials? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

An Invitation to Watch a Short Film

The Egyptian Army. RabeaMalah (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Structure of the British Army 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:
  • Those elements affecting the army were released as part of the Future British Army Structure (Next Steps publication:.<ref name=sn>[http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06038.pdf Briefing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation of "ракетная"

The Russian word "ракетная" (Raketnaya) is currently worded in two different ways in article titles. Rocket is used in all of the articles about Rocket armies, divisions and the one AA Rocket Brigade article. The missile (rocket) brigade articles that I created are the only ones that render the translation as "missile". Which one should be preferred? If rocket should be the standard, I will move the missile brigade articles. Kges1901 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in creating all the SRF articles (and the 5th AA Rocket Brigade) I went with the long-time standard translation: rocket instead of missile. Please do move the SSM brigade articles, and place in them in the new category Category:Theatre rocket brigades of the Soviet Union, a subcategory of Category:Ground Forces brigades of the Soviet Union (we don't have articles for the Navy brigades yet), and Category:Intermediate range missile units and formations (Scud, SS-20, Honest John, Corporal, Lance, Pluton, Hades etc) a subcategory of Category:Ballistic missile units and formations. You'll see that we follow the Russian translation conventions for the Soviet Union-specific articles, then at a higher level we have to go with the prevailing English use, following WP:UE. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you're also aware that we've created a minor wiki-ism with the Air Assault Brigade redirects. They are Ground Forces formations, as opposed to the straight Airborne Brigades, which are VDV. So please start moving, as you have time, the Air Assault Brigade redirects into Category:Air assault brigades of the Soviet Ground Forces, a subcat of GF Brigades of the Soviet Union. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

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

14th Army (Soviet Union)
added a link pointing to Afrikanda
Syrian Armed Forces
added a link pointing to Daily Star

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

re, Russian Troll Army

Im gonna take it to your page since i don't want him to possibly see it.

Thanks for the mass thanks. I honestly think that the article you sent was interesting to say the least. it is a complicated matter and sadly, wikipedia is a front where information can be manipulated easily, like what he has done. Winterysteppe (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries whatsoever. WP:RS simply doesn't mean much to the Trolls from Olgino!! There may have to be a few more revolutions in Ukraine, given the dense corruption there, and the Russian Spring will be some time coming...Buckshot06 (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that Russia will have its own Revolution coming. My humble prediction. The current authoritarian regime, yes it is a regime, is ridiculously corrupt. I mean, a bit of corruption is fine, but they take the fat boy's cake. (LOL). Winterysteppe (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#UNITNAME

Thanks for alerting me to these guidelines; I was aware of some but not all of them. However, I don't understand the rest of your message. Are you implying that units should always go under their last-used title? This is entirely logical for existing units, but not for historical ones that no longer exist. The guidelines suggest using 'the most common name used in historical literature'. Some Volunteer and Territorial units had well-known names that went back a hundred years, but these were then changed several times between 1947 and 1967. It is illogical to use the last (and least-used) title if it is better known under another. The plethora of alternative titles can be dealt with in text and by sensible creation of redirect pages. In the specific case of the 54th AA Brigade, it was briefly retitled 80 AA Brigade in 1947 before disbandment, at the same time the older 26th (Thames & Medway) became 54 (Thames & Medway). It seemed a clear case for disambiguation to help users who search on the simple title. If we ever get the other higher (50+)-numbered AA brigades, this will be the case with almost every one. CheersRickfive (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

RabeaMalah

Responding here to not give RabeaMalah any ideas: WP:ARBPIA3 is a lot more effective against IP socking. Given that the Egyptian Air Force and Egyptian Air Defense Forces are direct participants in the conflict and that the editor is adding content related to the Yom Kippur War among other things, the articles would be fair game for 500/30. MER-C 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning you gave me

Hello there, I noticed you gave me a warning on an article talk page discussion, but did not do the same for another editor who also engaged. I am curious as to why I was singled out. While I will promise to try and maintain civility in the future, I did not engage in that manner first on that page and this seems unfair to me. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

I wanted to ask you a question about formatting. I came across an article for an aviation unit of the British Army Air Corps that had recently had a name change. Instead of just changing the name in the infobox, an editor stuck out the old name, and added the new name above it. This didn't look right, so I removed it. I then found the same thing done in a half dozen other AAC articles, all by the same editor. This can't be proper, can it? If so, I'll revert myself, but otherwise it's possible there could be many more articles like this. Here are the diffs for the changes I made; [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Please have a look at the before & after in one of them to see what I'm talking about. This editor has even created articles with the old name added but struck out. I see you've dealt with this editor before, and since I know you to be a helpful admin who also works in the MILHIST area, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Maybe you could have a look and let me know? Thanks - theWOLFchild 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gavbadger:, @Thewolfchild:, our work on Soviet military units has meant we've had to deal with innumerable name changes - for example see 20th Guards Motor Rifle Division. Following the original example adopted off an American Revolutionary War regiment, the practice has been to list previous names but to not strike them out; another example I would point to would be 5th Guards Motor Rifle Division. It's not formalised yet which way the names list - least recent to most recent or the other way around, but that's the way I've been doing it along with W.B. Wilson, Ryan.opel, Wreck Smurfy, and Kges1901. Comments? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag, your method seems clearer than striking them out, wouldn't it be best for the practice to be formalized otherwise I can see the striking out returning quickly? Gavbadger (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we should probably propose an amendment to the MILMOS. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your work on en.WP.

Please note that years, dates, and common terms are not linked without special reason on en.WP. It would be helpful if you could unlink them when creating translated articles. Thanks. Tony (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

150th Special Operations Wing

Would you be able to restore this at your convenience, as I want to go through and salvage what I can of it, since I had no idea he had hit these articles so badly. Let me know if you would like me to recreate it from scratch though, as I just wanted to salvage what I could, before starting anew. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

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

4th Centre for Combat Employment and Retraining of Personnel
added a link pointing to Ariston
Forbes Field Air National Guard Base
added a link pointing to National Guard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews

 Military history service award 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Valery S. Tretyakov

The article Valery S. Tretyakov has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PamD 22:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 7th Assault Aviation Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NKO. 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) 10:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base

What can you tell me about this article? I was amazed to find a red link for it in an article I was editing, and I could probably find the information to start a new article. I can't believe I didn't contribute to the old one, but if you deemed it unsalvageable I guess I didn't because I'm pretty sure I don't do what was done there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Yes, this is really sad. Bwmoll3 spent enormous amounts of time working on these articles, but what we weren't aware of was that he was copying - straight copying - huge amount of text from offline books into the articles. You should browse Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819 for an idea of the scope of the problem - thousands of articles. Would you believe I actually also had to delete VIII Bomber Command!! - it's crazy. Feel free to go ahead and start gathering data, and should you wish you can place your text in the current, per WP:MILUNIT placing, article for the now civilian airport (Myrtle Beach International Airport#History) (became material should generally be placed at the most current name of the unit/base). When you've got enough for a separate article, we can double-check the sourcing (no comment on your integrity, but we got badly burned!!) and then reestablish the base article. Does that clarify things? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I certainly understand. I always want people to double check what I do. ?The sources I plan to use aren't as easy to get to as they once were. I have alternative sources I can check tomorrow. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I found a couple of sources on the Internet that got me started, but the real work is still ahead. I have a draft that currently would not pass anyone's review, but there are only so many hours in the day, and this will be a long process.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Phu Cat Air Base

FYI I'll be recreating Phu Cat Air Base when I'm finished with Da Nang Air Base. Regards Mztourist (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Phù Cát Air Base started, I should have it in reasonable shape within the next 5 days. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure. With a week of the three weeks gone, you've got another two weeks to find references for the other citation-needed spots in the Da Nang article. In accordance with NOTBROKEN, please maintain links to former units names at the former unit name, allowing links to be maintained if that former unit gets an article at some point. Thanks for all your hard work on this. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to your message.

You need to block those that remove information from your articles. I have one more article waiting approval then I am gone for good never to be heard from again.Don Brunett (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

3rd Parachute Division (Germany)

American commanders said they were outstanding.Don Brunett (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunet

Task Force 1-41 Infantry

I am getting ready to upload another photo for this article. Perhaps, you can help me so it does not get deleted. It is coming from a friend.Don Brunett (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

Battle of Kuwait International Airport

I keep sending the appropriate emails for the photos that were on this page and they were still deleted. They need to get some organization. Can you help me because they are deleting history!Don Brunett (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

The ticket # is [Ticket#2016051310021922]. Maybe you can help so it does not get deleted.....again? Thanks.Don Brunett (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

email for you

The Unicorns of Tanna-Tuva have sent you an email.  ;-) 79.184.5.165 (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

90th Operations Group

I have removed the copyvio material that was copied from 90th Operations Group onto the four articles on its component squadrons (319, 320, 321 and 400 Missile Squadrons) by rewriting their WW II sections. I can not for the life of me figure out where Globalsecurity.org got the information that it was a B-26 group and converted to B-24s and became combat ready in four weeks at Willow Run. All the usual sources show the units as designated heavy units and not flying the B-26. Perhaps because it was one of the rare heavy bomber units that trained with Third Air Force instead of Second, and Third usually trained medium and light bomber units?

I just ran into a massive cut and paste by the same editor in 601st Air Base Wing. I think it's fixable, but it will take a while. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek: Thanks (and thanks for your prompt recreation of 90th Missile Wing, which looks fantastic!!). This just shows how globalsecurity.org is unreliable; I'm removing links and text from it whereever I find it (in addition to the fact that it recycles copyvio text, so we cannot source things legally or properly). Thanks also for your 601 Air Base Wing work; to my mind the COMMONNAME would actually be 601 TCW, as the Support Wing/ABW period covered about five years of very low-profile operations. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Even though I'm the one who moved it, in light of the fact that 601st Air Base Wing is not the most recent name and it apparently has never been active as the 601st Air Expeditionary Wing strengthens the case to return the article to 601st Tactical Control Wing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, normally I say move it to the 601st AEW title. But as you say, it's a paper redesignation like the 1985 unit changes. Yes, agree it should still be at 601st Tactical Control Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery. Since you had some involvement with the Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert of Egyptian Army article to "stable" January 2016 version

Greetings

I note that were heavily involved in a series of talk page discussions with the now blocked user:RabeaMalah regarding the Egyptian Army article which he significantly changed using plagiarised material. Even if his material was based on reliable sources, it was so badly written as to be unintelligible. After trying to read the article as it stood as at 9 June 2016 I decided to revert the article to the version as at 17 January 2016 which seems to be the last stable version before user:RabeaMalah made the article unreadable. If you have any issues or concerns with my action, please let me know.

Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hi, I noticed you cut and pasted a Draft article to the mainspace (Draft:Battle of Barawala Kalay Valley), so I have now requested a history merge, since cut and pasting does not keep attribution. In veritas (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we create Category:State of Katanga?

Hi, I'm an Articles for creation reviewer, and we're discussing the proposed creation of Category:State of Katanga. If you have an opinion on this, I encourage you to reply to the comment thread at Draft:Category:State of Katanga! —Ringbang (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

When was the last time?

When was the last time you asked another editor to type out 5 paragraphs of copyrighted material into an AfD? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you were questioning if I had read the source. Of course that isn't the case, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Frustrated by your refusal to give even the bare details of the paragraphs in question, I decided to see whether I could access it myself. I didn't think I could, but I found out it was possible. I would kindly request you to avoid leading questions when you're dealing with me - I don't think they serve any purpose. I always try to WP:Assume Good Faith. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Frankly it doesn't look like good faith when you ask me to type out multiple paragraphs from a source and you can't point to a single example of ever making that request to another editor in all your years on Wikipedia, especially after Unscintillating did his whole "where did you read it" nonsense. I gave him some visual evidence. We probably agree on more things than we differ on, but this request definitely came across as lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I cannot respond without being virtually completely negative about the impression I received about your attitude from the very start of the AfD. Communication is difficult - we don't have the visual cues we really need - but from the start of the AfD I more and more gained the impression that you were determined to delete this article because of some sort of hidden agenda, in the face of all reasonable arguments to the contrary. This is the impression I received, not necessarily the message you were trying to send. I'm not telling you this to attack you, but in response to your comment, and maybe it will be helpful as feedback. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A hidden agenda? A quick scan of my users boxes show that I'm an Army veteran. I'm also a long time member of the Military History project. I'm not sure what hidden agenda I'd have, but I'm sure the possible answer would be entertaining. My "agenda" was simple: I didn't believe the unit has had significant coverage. Nothing too tricky about that. I do note that you've sidestepped my actual question of whether you've ever made a request like that before. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The question wasn't actually asked, merely leadingly implied - which I had *specifically* asked you *not* to do. It comes over as if you are making an accusation, not asking a question. I believe it's probably not just me who you've managed to create a bad impression of yourself in this manner - it really feels like one is being attacked, but not directly head-on!! Unscintillating (excuse spelling mistakes) clearly was put off by your approach in some fashion as well.
But I am beginning to think you sincerely desire an answer, and all this misinterpretation may be the difficulties of just communicating on the Net. No, I've never made such a request - never thought it necessary. But I was so frustrated by your unwillingness to communicate information which could aid both the discussion and the article that I decided to ask you. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

3rd Tank Division listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 3rd Tank Division. Since you had some involvement with the 3rd Tank Division redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Slashme (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Odell Cole

Did you really create this article? It doesn't look like the kind of page an experienced editor such as yourself would create. — Smjg (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WikHelp Trophy

WikiHelp Trophy
Thank you for your support! Jak474 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for offering support to me. Jak474 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem Jak; as I said, we're not here to discourage young 'uns well-prepared to write. Please thank me even more by taking those books off your shelf, and using them to plug *good* references into articles, and expanding some. 1ACG would be a good choice, but there are lots of other possibilities.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the WikiProjects I am part of. I thought that you might want to join. WikiProject Flight Simulation Jak474 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jak. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Abdullsaed

@Buckshot06, Bbb23, and Yamla: I'm pretty sure that banned user Abdullsaed (talk · contribs) is using several different socks: IsseGarowe (talk · contribs), Xamxamaa (talk · contribs), Dardaaransom (talk · contribs), Amamaalin (talk · contribs)... All these look like a total DUCK to me. I can bet there are some more socks. Just for the record - I expressed my opinion about Abdullsaed's socking last month, at Yamla's talk page. It seems like my gut feeling was right. --Sundostund (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

All  Confirmed + Gssom (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
After I turned off the computer yesterday evening, I questioned my findings. A more accurate conclusion is that the five accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to Abdullsaed. Sorry for the confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Just as I thought - all of these are his socks. Thanks for your quick reaction... This guy is just socking en masse, and I'm sure there are some more of his socks (or there will be, anyway). I'll report if I see more of them. --Sundostund (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:People.27s_Liberation_Army_Divisions

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:People.27s_Liberation_Army_Divisions. - NQ (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Help desk#Tool - NQ (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I Bomber Command XX Bomber Command, AAF Antisubmarine Commens

Noting that you deleted Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Command for Copyvio, I decided to "recreate" the article.

An aside: Where did you decide the violation came from? While recreating the article, I found only mirror sites.

I recreated the article using WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME as a guide as I Bomber Command (its last name), per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. I now believe this was a mistake. I believe that (once I finish work on the I Bomber Command Article, which I estimate will be complete by the end of the week) the antisub name is appropriate, I'd appreciate your help in doing the following (using your superpowers as an admin):

Move the I Bomber Command I have created over a redirect to Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Command. As I work on this article I've become convinced that the resources available and other notability guidelines result in a notability exemption to the last name guideline.
This frees up the I Bomber Command page. Rather than return it to a redirect to XX Bomber Command, I believe there's enough material on its actions as the AAF's first antisub unit to have an article on its own under the vacated I Bomber Command name. I think this also justifies an exemption to its last name as XX Bomber Command.
Since there are only "twofer" ambiguities if these changes are made, I think that hatnotes can take care of the I Bomber Command/XX Bomnber Command issues, and I can take care of that.

If you agree, let me know. I'll tell you when the Antisub article is ready. If not, let me know what adjustments are needed. Cherers. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Socking issues

Hello, Buckshot06. I would appreciate to hear your opinion about BoonDogleHero (talk · contribs) and Star303 (talk · contribs). I strongly suspect that they are someone's sockpuppets, but I can't point my finger at anyone at the moment. As you're involved with work on some articles related to Somalia, I thought you could recognize the possible sockmaster... By the way, having in mind that you inquired about that some days ago - I want to inform you that Mo2244 (talk · contribs) is identified as a sock of Abdullsaed (talk · contribs)... Anyway, I'm looking forward to hear your opinion about the two (possible) socks. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear all is there anyway for my identity to be verified in a confidential manner via third party such as linkedin I am willing to go through such a process/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoonDogleHero (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This post is a clear sign that you don't understand the rules of Wikipedia. The other signs are inclusion of content without references, upload of copyvio images (some of which are already deleted), etc... I have no doubt that you're someone's sock, the only question is who is your sockmaster. Its just a matter of time when you'll be blocked indefinitely. --Sundostund (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My dear Sundostund I am improving every day when it comes to the rules of wikipedia, including references and checking copyright of pictures, for your elaborate accusations that have no basis, thats for you to deal with BoonDogleHero (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

We'll see about that in the (near) future... During my years here, I've saw many editors like you, and none of them lasted for a long time. --Sundostund (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Destroyer Squadron 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Task Force 77. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Buckshot06. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 65th Group Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xuanhua. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 11th Army (People's Republic of China), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhang Qi. 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) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

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) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Noclador's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Noclador's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

and Chill!

Ok, back off. You're wrong. You're messing up the article. You don't understand what is going on. And if you have nothing better to do, then I will ask some arbitration to come in. I am in the process to write the Canadian NORAD section and adding all the radar station, and you come in clueless about the topic and mess the correct stuff up. Come back tomorrow when I have added all the radar lines and command and control hierarchy, instead of putting wrong stuff in the article. noclador (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Armed Forces

I did now all the redirects and will do next communication, SIGINT and then Radar/NORAD, plus an intro to CFE. Then it is time to tweak the whole thing with footnotes etc. noclador (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

All info I had in the various papers about the Structure of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989 is now in the article. Anything else we need to change? noclador (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There are no references for the equipment numbers in the Mobile Command footnotes, and none for a number of other equipment numbers in text. It needs footnotes throughout. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

  • New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
  • New Library Card Platform and Conference news
  • Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter



19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

United States Air Forces in Europe Structure 1989

As the article United States Air Forces in Europe Structure 1989 now includes many more units than just the United States Air Forces in Europe, should the article be moved to either:

Please advise. noclador (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Noclador: probably the first one, with a modification: pick an exact date; either 1 January, 30 June, or 1 December would be my pick, then we can put unit changes during the year in the text. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Butting in here, but I have just nominated one of the links in this article 2nd [sic] Weather Wing for deletion. The link currently redirects to 2nd [sic] Weather Group, which is a totally different unit and an inaccurate article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
You're always welcome at my talkpage LG. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Correct. 2d Weather Wing isn't 2d Weather Group. Please correct.
  2. United States Air Force in Europe 31 December 1989?? Seems clumsy. How about United States Air Force in Europe 1989 with a first line: "This article list all United States Air Force units based in Europe 1989 and, where required, lists changes that occurred during 1989."
Thoughts? noclador (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer "This article list all United States Air Force units based in Europe on 30 June 1989 and, where required, lists changes that occurred during 1989." Not necessary to have a exact date in the title, but it gets very confused if every second unit has an in-line, paragraph-length explanation about changes during the year. Can be in the command explanatory paras under each command heading. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok. So moving it to United States Air Force in Europe 1989 and adding the line as suggested by you. noclador (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Buckshot06.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Please stop saying (you will be blocked). Paragraph does not have a source, what do you expect me to do?. We can`t rely on the opinion of Ambassador and others. Paragraph size too big and boring.--RabeaMalah (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Buckshot06. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing in article about Somali Civil War

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Civil_War&diff=750954304&oldid=750945841

Is there some way we can get rid of the editorializing without whatever it is that you didn't like about my edits? 130.105.196.100 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, for a start, be careful of how you refer to UNSCRs. 2124, for example, didn't just approve of troop deployments after the fact, it gave authority for them to take place. Be careful of your wording. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
But isn't it POV or editorializing to even say whether the UN has authority? 130.105.196.100 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think we're misunderstanding each other. The UN cannot deploy troops without an authorizing resolution. Nothing else has historically given the legal authority. Saying such resolutions only 'approved' things could be read as implying some other authority gave the permission/authorisation prior to the resolution. Am I addressing what you're talking about? (and yes, I very much mean to imply the UN has authority over deploying troops on UN missions). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there something I'm missing here, or are we on the same page? 130.105.196.100 (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I would just leave you with this: don't make any changes that remove the word 'authorize/authorise' for UNSCRs talking about new troop deployments. That's the accurate word to describe what UNSCRs do in this case. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Now I'm certain I'm missing something here. I don't know the meaning of "I'm beginning to think we're misunderstanding each other", nor "Well I would just leave you with this". What does that mean? 130.105.196.100 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. I will try and rephrase what I meant. Do not make any changes that remove the word 'authorize/authorise' for UNSCRs talking about new troop deployments. That's the accurate word to describe what UNSCRs do in this case. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I hope that isn't a rude thing to say. This was supposed to be clear: I never questioned the alleged accuracy of it, I questioned the alleged objectivity of it. We must distinguish between accuracy and objectivity. Please see WP:TRUTH, which says that just because something is true does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. And yes, there are without doubt true, subjective statements. I probably need an example, so to save the time and effort of you assuring me of the accuracy of it as if that's what I'd questioned - it isn't - so here's an example: "That fairy tales have not already been adequately fractured (the reason for this phrasing is obvious upon visiting https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Fractured_Fairy_Tale) implies that the Disney Princess franchise must be re-imagined as the Touchstone Princess franchise, which involves changing the aesthetic of the franchise to match the genre of what substantially is the plot of the stories, by which I mean neo-noir, because the stories already are fundamentally brutal crime dramas set inside the State, which has already made the stories into particularly gruesome political thrillers. Also, Disney Princesses tend to be red-hot." That, in my opinion, is truth, or "accurate" as it were. Now we have the ability to discuss accuracy all week, but I don't see the point of it. I wanted to discuss objectivity. The reason why I'd strike this from a Wikimedia Project project page is not about accuracy, it's about POV. So if you're trying to imply that objectively speaking the UN gave them the authority to take place, then whether I agree with that idea or not, just say that objectively speaking the UN gave them the authority to take place. There is no need to confuse accuracy with objectivity for some sort of taboo.
The other thing that apparently is not being communicated adequately is that the final version of the changes - by which I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Civil_War&type=revision&diff=751381814&oldid=750954304 - complies with your demand that the word "authorize/authorise" stay in the article when referring to troop deployments, but here Cordless Larry is, reverting the changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Civil_War&diff=751693393&oldid=751392683 . What he missed when he called the edit "unexplained" is, what he reverted is not unexplained. 130.105.196.215 (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 130.105.197.39 (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thanks for your nomination, comrade. I didn't know Military Historian of the Year was even a thing.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all, tovarishch. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Message discipline

Please don't use message discipline anymore. When you want to violate WP:TRUTH and WP:WikiVoice, at least do that properly and discuss the rules you're violating. When someone figures out a propaganda technique, it doesn't work anymore. 130.105.213.86 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly please explain what you're talking about, directly addressing the issue, without using unfamiliar terminology? But having looked up Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, I will note that it only has the status of an essay, and my concerns about your changes are about breaches of WP:NPOV - one of our five core pillars. Kind regards and Happy Christmas, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I suppose us insisting that "state" not be capitalised, per the manual of style, is a kind of "message discipline", though I'm unsure what rule prohibits that. Anyway, Merry Christmas Buckshot06! Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Draft review

Hi Buckshot06, Can you take a look at my really long draft again? MilHist project post. It still needs a lot of work before it is publishable and I'm looking for some feedback and someone knowledgeable to talk about the issues— new, old, valid and perceived. It's in my sandbox. And some upcoming BLP questions I'll have related to the 2nd half. Thank you much in advance. John. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Johnvr4, the subject is wider than Red Hat, and needs to be renamed; ('U.S. Army chemical-biological storage and testing in Okinawa and the Western Pacific, 195x-197x?); the article does not proceed in a logical order, jumping back and forth chronologically; and there's significant diversion into seemingly unrelated subjects where not enough information is presented to justify their inclusion (Agent Orange). For a start, would recommend, or I could do, lining everything up in chronological order. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I've done a minor reordering of the first paragraph to serve as an example of lining everything up in chronological order; not meant to mean I'm mucking around with your article, merely trying to demonstrate what I think needs to be done. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I do not believe that SHAD needs to be included in the article, because this is all about land-based weapons; and given the focus on chemical and biological weapons, I do not believe that a list of nuclear weapons accidents in the Pacific is relevant. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you much for your edits Buckshot06 and for allowing me to partially explain the connections. Your edits were right on target. Project 112 was more than just dispersal testing. It also included forward deployment of the new agents (mainly VX) and new weapons systems. It included studies such as storage and deployment times from arsenal to depot, depot to forward base, forward base to deployment (similar to Brown Derby). The main issue is that I can't seem to locate any sources that say any of that and I've been accused of cooking stuff up on this subject before. It was to be added once I had a good source. I've seen a good source with the statement. In fact, I have it in a big folder but I need to relocate source. I have not been successful to date.
With SHAD, the various Pacific island tests were SHAD related (SHAD was not only defense or decontamination and that part of the acronym came a bit later). Prior to SHAD, The pacific Islands birds cruises and Pacific Atoll virus searches were also SHAD related (performed by SHAD crews). Not certain about the various Pacific Island toxin surveys. The requirement for Okinawa chemical weapons (or biological?) was to supplement nukes and offer the possibility of a covert alternative to their use as well as NKorea deterrent.[13] That (main) strategic reason to keep Okinawa was to have the ability to base nuclear deterrents there. The focus of the controversy is Nukes too especially the secrecy and as the motivation for much of the islands activities and the legacy seems to be the various controversies etc. emanating from it. The biggest conservatory on the island (I think) is still going on today because of the original cold war requirement to store nukes (for example). Thank you for your attention and suggestions for the draft. You are welcome to move this discussion to my talk page. And I hope to continue the conversation. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. The 'controversy' you seem to be aiming to cover comprehensively is too amorphous for a wikipedia article. It needs to be pruned. I'll happily defer to you about SHAD, but if this article is, in its essence, about CW & BW (storage and testing) from Okinawa to Johnston Island, it needs to be focused on that. It's far too disconnected and wandering at the moment. Putting everything in chronological order will fix the description of the main subject, but there are too many irrelevant issues here still at present (nuc weapons; COIN & Agent Orange; a whole extra section on Japanese involvement in research; etc). You have a choice - leave this in your sandbox as it is indefinitely, or accept some major pruning and reorganisation which might mean it becomes a wikipedia article. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood. It likely does needs pruning or separation plus a lot more before work it becomes a main article. The Agent Orange aspect I thought would be a good place to separate but it is also entangled with Red Hat- but not hopelessly. The AO section may have a due weight issue as some of the material was moved to the deleted articles talk page and is gone. Also please look at the expand-section notice section for BLP issues. I'm too inexperienced to tackle all of it. There are consequences for getting it wrong and it is too easy for me to goof up.
Red Hat was larger than the redeployment to Johnston. Arguing that very important point at the time became moot as the entry was deleted. The more recent reliable sources are consistent with my draft and are in conflict with most of the "it was only..." interpretation(s). I actually took to heart a suggestion you made long ago as I could not get away from apparent consensus of other editors that Red Hat was only the 1971 redeployment operation from Okinawa to Johnston. The suggestion was over 2 years ago so I doubt you even remember it but you once advised me that, "you *cannot* keep adding huge amounts of non-CW/BW transfer from Okinawa to Johnston material into the article - or you have to change the article's subject significantly." (Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat) I've came back with a new topic (but it is subject to suggestion and change).
In all seriousness, I suppose that I am sort of asking, "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" without any of the sarcastic overtones. To restate, assuming that I am someday able to convince you or others that these things belong together, what things need to be fixed? Johnvr4 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a reasonably coherent subject in there, U.S. chem and bio weapons storage and testing in Okinawa and withdrawal to Johnston and destruction. Other material, in my view, doesn't belong. Are you willing for me to take a crack at (a) pruning the irrelevant stuff, and then (b) reorganising the remainder so it flows logically and clearly? If yes, we can get this on the way to becoming an article - and a good one at that. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I can certainly agree to consider all suggestions and offers of assistance-especially from a knowledgeable editor. I'm sort of obsessive and sometimes difficult to get along with so please have patience with me and keep me in check if I get defensive. Could we please talk about the importance or connection of a particular subject or section or material in the event you don't understand the potential relevance prior to removing it? Something might sound original research-y but many of the sources actually say how these various other subjects are relevant to each other and I can very likely show you (nearly a certainty) a source or sources that state how X is related to Y or A, B, and C in most cases. There are a lot off sources or material from sources that I did not include anywhere. However I've reached my free quota on some or the source article websites and can't review them again until until January. Also please know that there are still some copy edits lurking in there too.
As we've discussed, the draft is not just Red Hat chemicals but all of the Unconventional warfare stuff on Okinawa. I'm not 100% sure how to phrase it in a title. Perhaps we could break it down by section, strike out material, color code, or move it to my sandbox2 until a decision is reached about were on Wikipedia it should go. Also we must remember that the full scope of Project 112 is still unknown by US policy makers. No Wikipedia editor can say with certainty what is unrelated. We simply need to follow the reliable sources available to us but I feel that the final word on much of this history has not been written yet and that a new source article or book, event, long overdue response to a request for official comment, FOIA, congressional investigation (like the GAO perhaps), or policy change could still come out at any point and upend the entire previous understanding of some or all of it. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Buckshot's comments above. The draft article is presently unfocused and difficult to follow. A way forward might be to structure the article around standard Wikipedia section titles, and prune material ruthlessly. For instance, the article could have a background section, a section on the storage of chemical weapons on Okinawa, a section on the removal of those weapons and a section on the aftermath of these events, with sub-sections as appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for your thoughts. Sorry Johnvr4, unfortunately the answer is no. This is in your sandbox, after all, and you can simply revert should you be unhappy with what I want to do. *It's too much of an unconnected mix-up right now!!* At the very least, to get this started moving towards being an article, it has to be *focused*. So at the very least, you have to let someone (doesn't have to be me necessarily) prune the subjects in the article so that they all relate enough to meet standards for a single wikipedia article.

'All the unconventional warfare stuff on Okinawa' is *too big, too unconnected* for one article. Sure, it's all related, but that does not mean it all goes in the same article - that's what wikilinks are for. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for that input. I understand the general concern of too many topics. It is somewhat disorganized. That is what I asked for suggestions to improve it. Perhaps the legacy of unconventional warfare stuff on Okinawa is too large for one topic on Wikipedia but there is too much Okinawa for any other WP topic and that is why is is together in my sandbox at this point. I am wide open to all suggestions for improvement but unless the majority of the 200+ sources have been read and the topics in them understood in the way that the sources have presented them (which is in the context of all of the other controversies) then I don't think ruthless culling of the this draft is going to work at all. I would much rather attempt to try to convince other editors of the connections and why I feel it should be there (hopefully without any ruthlessness) but it doesn't mean I'll be successful. This is not the previous article anymore. You are welcome to play in my sandbox without taking it over completely but I was hoping to talk first about the concerns, fully understand the concern, and then execute the necessary changes rather than the other way 'round with BRD. If material clearly has no connection to anything else or seems that it shouldn't be included then it should be very easy for editors to explain why it should be somewhere else (thats how I learn) with examples and sources and then discuss precisely as we did yesterday with the now removed Japanese research material. Finally, if certain material should go somewhere else, why not put the final touch on developing it here and move it out a bit later? What is the rush? Was talking about inclusion of specific subjects or moving the items into a different sandbox in order for editors to convey their vision for the draft just too much to ask for? Thank you again and hope we can continue.
First Tuesday for example was in the draft because that show said it was a small civil plane crash in Colorado that was the reason to behind the concerns of runways near weapons depot facilities. However other sources say the bomber crashes near depots at Lakenheath (nuclear) in the UK and at Kadena were concerns behind that danger and was part of the purpose of moving chemicals to and then limiting Johnston Atoll air and missile activities when gas or other special weapons were stored there. I'm not sure it can come out so easily. Also consider this from page B-22 of Phase II Environmental Baseline Survey, Johnston Atoll; Appendix B.

The storage of RED HAT and HO was to remain an item of national interest. These subjects were included in NBC’s telecast, “First Tuesday,” as part of a three-part series on Biological Research and Chemical Agents. Filming for the report was accomplished during Mr. Tom Pettit’s visit to Johnston Atoll in June of 1973

The sentence about Special Forces being funded by the CIA until 1963 and the reliable source was removed. I thought it was important to say that because I was unfairly challenged on an assertion that CIA had funded parts of Project 112 (with items specifically for use by special forces) and the statement is yet another aspect of verifying it if it's challenged again. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
John, we're not volunteering to read 200+ sources; we're volunteering to rationalise a wikipedia article. I have removed a number of things that are barely tangential; I would have removed the bomber crashes in the UK and at Kadena, but left them in considering your sensitivities. But a crash that's not military in Colorado is simply too unrelated. Now, you should not be trying to write a magazine or academic journal article here, which is where justification about CIA funding of SF might fit. This is a WP article about a single topic.
Look, I've tried several times to put my point of view and to offer to assist, but I don't thing we're going to get any farther. My recommendation would be to write it up as a magazine article, or for your or anothers' website. Take it off wikipedia (you cannot, I think, leave it forever in your sandbox - my previous mistake.) As it is, as far as I can tell, you're too attached to all the tangential topics for us to turn this into a wikipedia article. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that we will have to continue to agree to disagree for now. I appreciate your attempts to help but what was proposed does not really allow me much opportunity to rationalize anything. I've put my point across and offered to help your understanding so that these changes can be made. An editor does not need to read all 200+ articles but they do need to read the main sources and understand them. Rational removal with sound reasoning would be just fine. "Ruthless" removal of material requires far too many assumptions on the part of editors who might be acting on their beliefs, who may not have read that source, or not understand why material is presented, or blame that misunderstanding on my sensitivity rather than what I am attempting to explain to them. I'm happy to keep it in my sandbox until enough new sources are released to prove opposing assertions about the content wrong- as has happened repeatedly for the last nearly 3 years. Just read 'em.
The civil air crash in CO is sort of exactly the type of thing that you needed to review or ask about and understand before it was thrown out. In fact, it is a shining example of what I'm trying to explain to you and other editors.
That small plane crash was about mile from Denver's then-airport which was adjacent to an open nerve gas storage depot AKA Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA). I can't think of any topic that is more related to this very subject than RMA. The official concerns about gas storage near runways related to that crash was reported publicly on national TV in The Denver Dilemma. It is the (majority) opinion quoted from an apparently reliable source and it cant be ignored or tossed out. If there was a legitimate concern supporting removal of the material then I would be wide open to discussing it. However, an editors simple opinion assertion that "a crash that's not military in Colorado is simply too unrelated" is not remotely verifiable given the source that says it was highly related to this subject of storage and was of "national importance."
The nuclear munitions for example were discussed at length in the very first article revealing gas leak and storage in Okinawa from the Wall Street Journal. Many other sources related the events and legacy similarly. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I have not made any judgments on whether the content is right or wrong; all my comments here have been about editing this mass of text into a coherent form.
To make a final comment on writing an article using your last example, none of the crashes near NBC storage sites would make it into such an article. That such storage sites are valuable and vulnerable is so obvious as to need no text (and I hope that also tells you that I'm not trying to disprove or otherwise the content). Rocky Mountain Arsenal is not relevant either; to create a coherent article, one would need to stick to CW and BW on Okinawa, and maybe extend it to disposal at Johnston Atoll. I'll ping @Nick-D: for his final thoughts as well, but honestly, keeping all the loosely related threads makes it too disconnected for a single article. Things are linked - that's what links are used for in wikipedia. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This was and is material I am developing and I will publish or ask for review so I can publish when I feel it is ready. I've temporarily blanked your test. Please remove it from the main space. Thanks. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Johnvr4, did you notice the edit box that you clicked on with every upload of the original article, before it was deleted? "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". The legal version of this is expanded on at the userpages page, which says 'all edits on Wikipedia, including all userspace edits, are licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and in most cases the GNU Free Documentation License as part of Wikipedia. User pages may be mirrored by other sites. If there is material you do not want copied, reposted, or reused, do not post it on the site. Regarding the original page, administrators, including myself, can resuscitate material on request, and this is entirely possible with your original text, which you have released all rights to. It was 'published' years ago, and still may be turning up on other sites. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I should also note that WP:CBLANK is for discussion pages, not for the mainspace. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, it appears you're getting very wound around the axle about this. I have deleted the page, for now. But you should be under no illusions that anyone who wishes to use any of the material, can, in any shape or form, on Wikipedia and off. That's what you agreed to by pushing the submit button on the original uploads of the version of the article that was deleted in 2013. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to finish the thought, I'm clearly not happy about you taking the material and developing your own article from it. The evidence of me pushing a submit button was deleted along with the article and the talk page per your request extensive culling of material and locking the page while citing WP:IAR and subsequently your immediate vote keep and cleanup back in 2013. You restored it to my sandbox so that I could redevelop and now you've complained that it's in there and you've used the fact that its being redeveloped to justify taking it and doing your own thing with it? I was happy to discuss ANY and ALL and EVERY concern you had and allow the necessary changes to rectify it where needed. I was pretty nasty in 2013 so I should maybe have expected something like this but my mom said you aren't a very nice playmate and that you aren't allowed back in my sandbox until you can learn some manners and that she wants to have a sit down with the other parents! I also had the sudden urge to write about Kuzheyev so there are no hurt feelings but please don't play in my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi John, Wikipedia is based around collaborative editing where editors who contribute material need to willing for others to change it and use it - as the note at the top of the editing window says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions". Please note that this also means that material posted here can be used on entirely different websites as long as Wikipedia is acknowledged as the source (though in practice this condition is rarely met and few resources are devoted to following up on it). Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted at my request? You misunderstand what I said. Administrators have very wide powers to bring back (deleted) articles in order to write or rewrite new ones, and anyone could have requested that. So reusing the 2013 text is not something you should be complaining about. Regarding 'ANY and ALL and EVERY concern, I think you may say so and may even mean so in principal but in practice you were recommending that I, or anyone else, read 200+ sources before we went though major revisions, like the BRD process. It's not really practical. Flight of the Concords, for personal reasons, is *entirely* the wrong choice for you to try to make a point; much better for you to explain it in words!! Finally, honestly, if you wish to stick to your obviously preferred style of writing, with many loosely connected topics, I would reiterate my recommendation for you to find another publishing outlet. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but It would be best to not use the 2013-era text given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to drop it and the NZ/FTOC link was just my way of improving the mood over it. My point was that don't want to let that incident get in the way of improving the draft. What Nick-D expressed above was my obvious concern too and also would like to add that I had very little assistance when I initially edited all that was deleted in 2013. The great alarm was the way you presented your draft-with a new replacement article. It might have been good. I didn't read it as I was too concerned with how you had presented it. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I might be getting in a bit late here, but I agree with Buckshot's comments about the article's scope. From a quick review of the article, I note that it covers unrelated topics as diverse as a near-miss between two ships at San Francisco, the emergency landing of the B-29 which attacked Nagasaki at Okinawa, a nuclear-armed aircraft catching fire at "an unnamed U.S. pacific air base" which may or may not have been Okinawa, various other accidents not at Okinawa (North Carolina, an aircraft carrier sailing past Okinawa, etc), the crash of a conventionally-armed B-52 at Okinawa, the seizure of Japanese and German technology by the US following World War II and US conventional training exercises and intelligence activities on Okinawa. The large amount of blow-by-blow analysis of primary sources, administrative processes and court cases is also not suitable Wikipedia content. Most of this material could be briefly summarised - for instance, a para or two noting that Okinawa was a key US military base throughout the Cold War and a para or so on the strengths and weaknesses of US CRBN weapons handling and storage procedures. Overall, the article isn't really suitable for Wikipedia - it reads like a personal project rather than a neutral and focused encyclopedia article. I also agree with Buckshot's suggestion that this content would probably be best published on some other website. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The near miss in San Fran was during a RED HAT/Project 112 deployment to Okinawa. I was going add a sentence or two about the intensity of the fighting on Okinawa during WWII was part of the main (official) justification to use A-bombs to end the war (and the number of casualties on Okinawa were the basis of the casualty estimates of attacking the mainland)-(and using the chemical weapons pre-positioned in the Mariannas). An unnamed Pacific base...that because of the secrecy is still part of the unknown/legacy of basing them there... The NC crash could come out if you could please point me to both of the two nuclear-tippled missile launches that mentioned in response to it not being in Okinawa-the other link it is that subsequently that weapon in NC and the Nike nuke warhead were found to be particularly susceptible to accidental nuclear detonation. The Kadena bomber was conventionally armed yet 30,000 pounds of bombs detonated nearly into the depot of gas and nuke igloos (and conventional munitions that were not in bunkers) and the blast so large that authorities had to reassure everyone that it was not an atomic bomb. Importance and relevance of the crashes was already discussed above. Carpet bombing Vietnam from Okinawa was already highly controversial and that is another reason the bombing subject is mentioned with a brief sentence. The Kadena crash was the reason for the gas move out of Chibana (away from the population) to White beach area near Tengan Pier (and Hawaii command) before going to Johnston. The more valuable Kadena operations during the war could not be restricted by vulnerable storage which was near population and big airplanes and lots of bombs. The crash was a close call that caused policy makers to realize risks were too high. Seized WWII tech was moved out except for brief mention of mosquito and crops both relevant. There no conventional training. The draft currently is about Unconventional warfare specific to Okinawa. Please see what subjects UW and Chemical Corps includes. The intel folks named and ran red hat.
The draft was a bit of a project for a few months after it was deleted in my OR-sy attempts to cite it by quoting primary sources (no re-interpretation) before I had great secondary sources to sum it up. The secondary sources that came later sometimes quote the primary sources which worked. Now I have good secondary source and the primary sources are still accurate and entirely consistent with those sources. Also, some of what you are calling Primary sources are actually Tertiary if you look at them. Some of that detail and some of those sources might not be suitable for wikipedia. I understand that. I'm not clear on many rules and trying to learn. I might have another source or might not. It might not matter. Let's take it one question or one section at a time at it is too overwhelming to read or answer a long string of concerns. Last, shall we move this conversation? Johnvr4 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll try again: most of the issues you covered above are irrelevant to the primary topic. You reacted with great alarm when I tried to demonstrate a paired-down version which tried to stick to the core topics you wish to write about. You seem determined to include mentioning them all (or most of them). This will, in all likelihood, make any draft you write unsuitable for being a Wikipedia article. I, and Nick-D, considering this position, recommend you go elsewhere. Given that, moving this conversation seems only to extend a discussion which should be closed to a another page, is probably the wrong idea. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc.
You've mentioned "several core topics" that I included and keep referring to the "primary topic". You've made several statements that indicate your understanding of "the primary topic" is something it is not and more statements about the relevance of "core topics" based on that mis-understanding. I'm not sure whether your last edit attempt incorporated that understanding but I don't feel that we need multiple RED HAT WP articles for the first deployment, storage 1, re-deployment, and storage 2 and the reasoning behind each of them.
Please read again what I wrote above and I will do the same. We are human and can make mistakes. Please review the important sources and realize that one or more of us may be wrong (and especially me). Perhaps at some point we could ask a noticeboard whether the RED HAT operation/mission lasted for 37ish years or if it was just the public affairs version "Operation RED HAT" that was mainly in 1971 which should be the focus of the RED HAT core topic. If we have a content dispute (about my sandbox), then refer to a source or a policy to guide us to resolve it. If material needs to go then please show me why and show me where on WP it needs to go. If the move makes perfect sense and does not create a plethora of other issues (such as UNDUE weight on Okinawa), then that is what I will eventually do when all the issues with that bit of material are worked out or else into another sandbox to sort later. Currently I have one big problem where it isn't bothering anyone and there is no super-urgency. I don't want 100 urgent problems that will be a bother to other editors and disrupt WP until I can sort out my mistakes and any legitimate concerns with it. It's a big job and I can understand why you'd want no part of it. You've said, "No" and "too much" and that is a good enough answer to my initial question. Thank you for the time and effort you've already spent. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Post Script:

Main points of agreement: (please modify as needed) Johnvr4 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Not ready for WP in present state
  • What RED HAT is or is not needs better consensus.
  • Sources and policies should be the deciding factors on what material is relevant rather than an editors beliefs.
  • The subject is wider than Red Hat, and needed to be renamed. (I had recently changed the name from Legacy of U.S. weapons of mass destruction on Okinawa to Legacy of Unconventional warfare doctrine and no title is settled but it is slightly wider than chem-bio to include the various motivations.)
  • Project112 included forward deployment of new agents and munitions but a source is needed.
  • Chronological sequence and organization (my recent edits did screw up the sequence somehow)
  • Too long. condense further
  • Too many topics, move some out (which topics we did not agree)
  • Too too much detail in places or not enough to explain relevance in others
  • use of primary sources (whether correct use was not agreed)
  • synthesis in some areas may remain
  • copy edits in some areas may remain

14:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Johnvr4 I have reached the end of my interest in wrangling with you over this. Happy Christmas Buckshot06 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year. For what it's worth, I just found a direct link between Red Hat munitions on Okinawa that were removed for a Project 112 R&E test for the MC-1 (and for Sarin??) at Dugway in March 1969.[14] But there was no Sarin test at that location at that time. The MC-1 tests (DTC 69-14) came years later (perhaps delayed) and they used a stimulant.[15] Johnvr4 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Buckshot06!

Happy New Year!
Hello Buckshot06:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Aṭlas (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Doubts

I have some doubts about BerneCha. This account was created after Three days of your block to HailesG. He's doing the same edits as the HailesG (his first edit, the same tone). He is from Switzerland just like HailesG (the proof is domain ".ch" in this edit). Regards ---Aṭlas (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Regards ---Aṭlas (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
"I will happily back up your case with previous data about RabeaMalah/HailesG."
What was this previous data ?--Aṭlas (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Just the copyright blockages under RabeaMalah - look at the old talk page discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
aha, a headache ? --Aṭlas (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at the revision history of Egyptian Armed Forces. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Liberia copyright problem

I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://theperspective.org/2004/june/decentralization.html, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Amhara people, Horn of Africa

@Buckshot06: Happy new year. Would you take a look at @Soupforone's comments in Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Their behavior in Somalis article is repeating in Amhara people article, and your guidance would be helpful in improving the affected articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, would you mind popping up here? I believe you and I together may be needed to produce an improvement here. Pinging for info Ms Sarah Welch. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Amhara people is a bit TL;DR (though I could give it a go when I have more time to spare), especially since I'm not an expert on the topic. Some of the aspects of the discussion have worrying echoes of past discussions about Somalia-related articles though. Can you summarise the dispute briefly for me, Ms Sarah Welch? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@CL: Indeed, it has become a wall of text and TLDR. Yep, same issues. We have three major ethnic groups in the Horn of Africa: Somalis, Oromo and Amhara. The wiki articles on them are improving, but the WP:TE index has been high in all three, making progress difficult. One of the editors in particular, Soupforone, is active in all three (and other Arab-African people related articles elsewhere). Their understanding of wikipedia policies lags far behind their willingness to invoke them.
@Soupforone has been suggesting the deletion of scholarly WP:RS and summary from high quality sources. Reasons they give is WP:REDFLAG or WP:ATTACK applies, then saying if that does not apply, then WP:BLP applies, and so on (1, 2, 3). There is some "nationalistic"-threats too (by @EthiopianHabesha), and some deliberate or inadvertent one-sided POV pushing as well.
Lectures with "don't make any changes to unsourced content (OR)" because "the page was honed through a laborious consensus process". When I pointed out that totally unsourced OR is simply unacceptable per core content policies, with or without consensus of IPs or whoever, puzzling and incorrect accusations have followed. In the Oromo article, thanks to admin Doug Weller intervention, we have made progress, but I have been hesitant to expand the Culture & Society sections of that article.
Now, the Amhara article has an IP, egged on by @Soupforone, seeking sections deleted (I think the paragraphs on marriage, kinship and history that I largely added). With @Buckshot06's intervention, we are making progress again. In summary, we have WP:TE and wall of text on those three talk pages, I am afraid. Would appreciate if you kept an eye, when time permits, to keep things moving forward. The editing of @Soupforone is puzzling, and may need AN/ANI attention, as a last resort.
This summary was long, sorry, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

WP:RFAR

Hello Buckshot06. Since you have been trying to keep an eye on the dispute at Amhara people you might be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#The Amhara people page lost neutrality and is being misrepresented., a request filed by User:GabiloveAdol. My guess is that this will be declined by the committee. It does not seem to be expecting too much that somebody who quarrels with a quotation should go to the library, or ask for an excerpt from somebody who has the book. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

New AN/I case where you are mentioned

Please see this. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22&oldid=1077746077"