||This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.
Problems with ip assessments
A user ip User talk:184.108.40.206 has assessed a very large number of articles for this project, despite the fact that they are not apparently a member of this project. More problematically this reviews are universally set at start class, regardless of the content of the article - see []. The particular bone of contention with me is the article England in the Late Middle Ages, which, given its length and full citations is clearly not a start class article and was originally set as of high importance, which (since the mention of wars is pretty minor article) is also not accurate. I am not sure what members of the project can do about this issue, which does pretty much make a mockery of the assessment system, but since I cannot get them to stop redoing the review or reconsider it can I request a considered reassessment of this article please?--SabreBD (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- So they're "reviewing" articles but rating them all as "start class" regardless of the actual quality of the article and the rating it truly merits? Should they be reported to an administrator? I'm not sure how that works, but it seems the IP User talk:220.127.116.11 may have been doing this for quite some time and has drawn what might be interpreted as expressions of disapproval from other editors such as MOLEY, Peacemaker67 and Bwmoll3 - so it's not just you. JDanek007Talk 23:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I noticed a couple of other comments, but didn't realise it had been commented on so many times. Given that other edits do not seem disruptive I suspect that they just don't understand how the process is supposed to work. The best result would be that they get an account, read the criteria and start actually applying them, of course. Unfortunately it is really easy for an editor to assess articles if they do not read them. It will take a lot longer to check them over in a considered way.--SabreBD (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've already fixed the issue at England in the Late Middle Ages and I've issued a formal warning to @18.104.22.168: about this. The IPs contributions have not been a clear-cut case of mechanical copypasta pro forma assessments, although judging that article as "start" class is laughable. Recently the IP has been helpfully adding B-class checklists and other items for the WPMILHIST banner. I think these rushed assessments ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
- I'm opposed to having IP editors on Wikipedia at all and this instance is one reason why. Why is there an editor taking so much effort to garden exclusively within MILHIST but not register an account and join the project? Should I assume this is a user who is socking for some odd reason? I appreciate having help from anyone across the internet, but I become wary of users I don't know and whom don't become part of the community. Regardless, I don't think this issue rises to the level of seeking admin intervention. Thanks for posting here about the issue so we can address it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, MILHIST doesn't utilise importance, only class, so some education appears to be in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great, Peacemaker67 - I hope this can be sorted out! I think MILHIST is an amazing project and have enjoyed consuming its articles for several years! JDanek007Talk 00:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad this issue is being raised again. I noted about a dozen articles which I had a major hand in writing were assessed today by IP User 22.214.171.124 as "start" class all within literally seconds of each other, likely the time it took the user to copy and paste an evaluation on the article's talk page. I went though this on 25 March with this user and reverted all of those "assessments " and was subsequently accused by the IP user as being a disruptive editor for being "disruptive" Please note this from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators&action=edit§ion=38
I have been trying to add assessments to several articles by User:Bwmoll3, but he keeps reverting my edits, so these articles lack an assessment. Can this be considered disruptive editing? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If you review the contributions history of that editor, you will see that it makes these automatic assessments on an ongoing, routine basis, which puts a "checklist" on the article. Now that is all well and good to add a checklist, but it is NOT to "assess" the article as part of adding the checklist. Even in the checklist the IP user states that no review of the article was made. The IP user simply assesses it at "start" class in rapid-fire means. That is not fair to the editors who spend the time to write the article. As a result, over the past several weeks, I've written some articles simply without adding a checklist to the talk page to avoid this kind of nonsense.
Now today I see those articles have been "assessed" by IP user 188.8.131.52 (which may or may not be the same user) as "start", with the same type of checklist that clearly states the article was not read or review d. These assessments were made again with seconds of each other. I'm simply going to revert them again, and hopefully this IP user will stop.. or maybe have the gaul to report me again for being "disruptive". Well, that's too bad....
I fail to understand why this nonsense is being permitted by the moderators of this group. If a reviewer isn't going to review the article, and this is allowed by users who are not members of our group, or even be bothered enough to register on Wikipedia, it should be asked why this is being allowed to be permitted.. and even condoned, as when i twas raised on the coordinator's talk page, no action was taken a month ago?
Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree it is problematic. I believe that we should be asking the ip editor to restrict themselves to adding the banner fields and B Class checklist, but NOT rating any criteria in the checklist. Adding a banner and checklist, but only assessing one B Class criteria (for example), automatically rates the article as Start, even if the class= field is not populated. If no fields in the checklist are rated, the class= field remains "unassessed", and those of us that can assess all criteria against the B Class checklist will see these articles in the task list, and will hopefully properly assess them against all the criteria, thereby coming up with a "fair" assessment of the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- This individual has caused trouble elsewhere (see for instance here). And edits like this are next to useless. While most of the IPs edits are harmless enough, there are enough problematic cases (coupled with all the melodramatics we've seen in the past about the unassessed backlog) that we might need to start applying blocks. The chap doesn't appear to want to listen when one points out he's wrong, and that type of behavior simply isn't tolerable in a collaborative project such as this one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It should be noted that in some cases the IP in question has assessed the article in a case where the checklist was already in place - for instance  - The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yesterday, I assessed I Troop Carrier Command, an article Bwmoll wrote and 184.108.40.206 "assessed" twice. The IP editor inserted a blank checklist with the class set to start and only B4 (grammar) assessed (a yes). When I looked at the article B4 was the only area I assessed as "no" and the article is very close to B class. 220.127.116.11 had participated in the "assessment" of this article as well, so there may well be sockpuppetry involved. I can sympathize with the irritation resulting from an "assessment" that rates four areas as yes/no. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If there are all these instances of disruptive editing, why aren't there the needed warnings on the talk page? An admin would certainly block the IP if each user did their part to move the bureaucratic wheels. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- User:Chris troutman I honestly don't know how to pursue administrative remedy. I also haven't "suffered" directly per se - only observed what's taking place (not sure if that distinction is salient). I think I also assumed that there was an administrator "w/in" the project who would see this. Oops. So...how to proceed? JDanek007Talk 04:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Jdanek007: Based on the incidents mentioned here I've slapped the IP with adequate warnings so the IP has already received the final warning. Next time he/she steps out of line it's straight to the drama boards and it'll be a slam dunk block. In the meantime I recommend MILHIST change the assessment rules which right now allow "any editor" to make individual assessments (B class and below). The WP Editorial team seems to intone that members of WikiProjects make the assessments though it doesn't say so explicitly. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to progress the report if that becomes necessary. I know my way around the boards. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jdanek, there are plenty of admins in MILHIST (I'm one, for starters, though I'm probably "involved" based on the history here)
- Part of the issue is that this person uses multiple IPs and doesn't seem to be tied to a single one, which makes a block difficult to enforce. And the disruption isn't significant enough to warrant a rangeblock that would probably hurt other individuals. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If I can add my two cents worth: I relly don't see the point of SabreD's and Bwmoll3's comments. If they truly believe the IP user's assessments are incorrect, then why don't they simply change the assessment? I don't see how continually reverted his/hers edits can do much good. In fact, it would probably take only a little more time to complete the checklist correctly as it would to continually monitor and revert all of his/hers edits.
Looking over the Ip's edit logs, it would seem that he/she is doing some good by adding checklists to templates which lack a list and even adding the template to articles which lack it entirely. It seems to me that this editor would be making all these edits if registered users would simply go through these articles in the first place. We could start by going through articles pertaining to the task force we're a member of.
At the coordinator's talk page, I suggested a drive to add templates and checklists to all MILHIST articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Template drive?. Doing this would probably be more productive than complaining about all the mistakes that this editor is making. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to say this, I think IP User talk:18.104.22.168 and Wild Wolf are either friends or this is a case of socking. When IP 64 first started disrupting Wikipedia he made a rather snarky comment under Wild Wolf's user name on my talk page Here. If you look at the contribution history of Wild Wolf [ and IP64 [] you can see that they never edit Wikipedia at the same time and Wild Wolf has only started to reply now that IP64 is under a block warning. I think this merits a disregard of Wild Wolf's comments and needs to go to Admins for a possible sock puppetry case. --Molestash (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also note they use the same syntax commands when assessing articles Example: Wild Wolf's Editing Style and IP 64's Editing Style --Molestash (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- After review of their edit histories, I have opened a Sockpuppet investigation on Wild Wolf and the edits of IP 64Here. Any comments are welcome. --Molestash (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I took a look at your talk page archive, Molestash, and saw that Wild Wolf admits there that they have, at best, a history of permitting alleged-unauthorized use of their account by unknown third-parties who leave snarky comments that they must then disavow, like: "If I really thought I could assess these articles myself, would you really think that I would be putting these articles up on this page? Rather than continually removing the articles, why not actually assess them? (Think there might be a reason why the page is called Requests for Assessment if the articles can't be assessed?)" and then their admission of permitting the alleged-unauthorized use: "Sorry about the previous edit. I had stepped away from my computer for a few minutes and someone must have used my account." ... Err, right. Certainly seems to suggest something could be amiss. I commend you on your diligence in pursuing the matter. JDanek007Talk 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I do as well. I've blocked Wild Wolf for a month, as well as the IPs he has used. I did not block him indefinitely, because I have the hope that now that he has been "caught" he can contribute constructively after the block expires. If not, then he will be blocked indefinitely. -- Atama頭 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update, Atama. If I may, I have a Question though, for future reference: when one notices a situation like this, is the best thing to do, after reaching out to the individual user and trying to sort things out w/ them directly, to come here and bring it to the attention of other project collaborators, or should you proceed directly to opening a formal complaint via whatever is the appropriate administrative process? I don't think I've ever formally initiated a complaint or been the subject of one, though I certainly have tried to resolve issues or clarify situations by direct communication via talk pages. JDanek007Talk 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- It depends on the nature of the dispute. If the dispute is due to content concerns, such as a disagreement about what material should be included on an article, or in this case how articles are being assessed, or really any other difference of opinion then you should follow our policy on dispute resolution which includes seeking other opinions via a relevant WikiProject like this one. On the other hand, if there is disruption being performed or any other action that requires administrative intervention then your best bet is to reach out to a noticeboard such as WP:AN3 for edit-warring, WP:SPI for abuse of multiple accounts, WP:AIV for obvious vandalism, or WP:ANI for general disruption not covered by another noticeboard. I definitely commend you for trying to resolve issues by communication, that's what I always try to do in disputes and what everyone should try first. -- Atama頭 21:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Atama. As I mentioned to another contributor earlier in this discussion thread, I wasn't aware of how those particular administrative issues could be dealt with. So I appreciate your guidance, especially as it appears in the context of the present issue w/ the defective assessments originating from an IP user. Best regards, JDanek007Talk 21:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, if you have a chance, the GAN backlog is getting out of hand again, now 54 articles. I'll try to do a few this weekend. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Tks for the heads-up, PM -- I've claimed Overlord for now, but no objections if another keen party wants to join me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers - I've put myself down for one as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm always happy to see more reviewers, I only count 26 articles in GAN/Warfare. Of which maybe half-a-dozen already have reviewers. I think that the situation is far more desperate at ACR where some articles have been sitting for more than a month awaiting reviewers. Normally we're quite a bit better there, but I don't really know why things have been different of late.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, per this, it's 40 of which 30 or so don't already have a review started. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a thoroughly obsolete list; I don't know if it's updated manually or by a bot, but it's still wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I'll check. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Actually, it's not as simple as that. There may be some problems with the bot alert, but it picks up MH tagged articles that aren't at Wikipedia:GAN#Warfare, but are nevertheless nominated for GAN. Here's the scoop. GANs listed at Warfare aren't the only MILHIST GANs. Here's a few current examples Talk:Dejan (magnate)/GA1 is listed under Royalty, nobility and heraldry, but is also a MILHIST GAN, as is Talk:Dayton Project/GA1 which is listed at Chemistry and materials science. Both are MH GANs as well. So the "current" 24 ain't all the MH GANs. Any ideas about how to fix this? @Kirill Lokshin:? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense, although it seems to be very slow in deleting completed reviews; which is my main point of criticism. No ideas off the top of my head, but I'll think on it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:WPMA to the template Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
Hi folks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/House of Lancaster could do with some more input. It got bogged down a while ago on issues that I think are now resolved, so it would be great if one or two more people could review it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Have left some final comments. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
German 2nd Infantry Division and 12th Panzer Division
G'day all, We currently have three articles for the same formation, 2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) and 12th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). What is the appropriate title? The last (1940-45)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, my suggestion would be to merge all content into the last iteration and make the other two redirects. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- That would be the specific direction WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME would give. However a bunch of the German World War II divisions are still at their initial rather than final names. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- No time like the present, Buckshot! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm more inclined to keep the articles on infantry divisions that later became panzer divisions as separate articles rather than fold them into the panzer division articles because they did participate in Poland, France, etc. as infantry units. But the first two articles listed above should definitely be combined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) should be merged into the 12th Panzer Division article. 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) has to be deleted as there were various 2nd Divisions throughout german history. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Sturmvogel on this - yes, the articles are very short now, but eventually, I assume these articles will be fleshed out, and the narrative of the 2nd Division's participation in the Polish and French campaigns should provide a significant amount of prose (not to mention the peacetime period), along with order of battle info and the like. It's probably worth pointing out articles like 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) that show how these divisional articles can be expanded. Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) gets turned into a disambiguation page listing the Imperial German, Reichswehr, Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr divisions, 2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) stays and gets expanded to cover the period from its creation until it became 12th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). Any objections? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, yes I think that could work. I've got no objections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that works. IIRC, the other German infantry divisions that this applies to would be 4th, 13th, 16th, 23rd, 27th and 33rd.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturm, might be time for a clean-up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A lot of campaignboxes added to pages like these: Battle of Aubers Ridge Battle of Messines (1914) had been removed by User talk:Thqldpxm who has replied thus: "If you are offended by my edit, I apologize. (I do not speak English well, sorry Please understand.)
Campaignbox World War1 in Battle of Agbeluvhoe, Campaignbox Frontiers 1914 and Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) in Siege of Maubeuge I think that it is unnecessary to. Because, for example Battle of Agbeluvhoe ⊂ Togoland Campaig ⊂ World War1
My response is slow because I don't know how reply. I am very sorry."
Are there any conventions as to campaign box contents and relevance? Some changes to the contents of the boxes have been made this year and a few new ones added but this had increased the number which overlap as well as embodying newer pages and topics.Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, Keith, the policy link is WP:CAMPAIGN, but I'm not sure it provides much guidance here, unfortunately. Based on the above, I'm not quite sure of the reasons behind the removal (the syntax doesn't quite make sense to me, sorry). As such, I'd suggest WP:BRD applies in this case, and consensus should be pursued by the editor removing them before doing so again. Given that it appears language might be a factor here, the editor who removed them might have a valid reason for doing so, but might be having trouble expressing themselves clearly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, the editor seems to be a bit previous, according to other comments but also appears willing to listen to reason. I pasted the link on the talk page. There's about 25 deletions to resolve.Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Checking back on a number of the content changes (see his/her special contributions, there appear to have been a number of contentious changes (overwriting existing categories), as well as blanking. I'm not a specialist in most of the campaigns as such, but I do know enough to recognise campaign-driven content changes when I see them. Frankly, the scope, number and specific ability to recognise categories and replace them with a few manual tweaks (we're not talking cut-and-paste over an existing category) smacks of WP:NOTHERE. If the user's English is so poor as to not be able to communicate on the most basic level, knowledgeable or not, they simply shouldn't be editing here. I'm going to ask which language they speak and see whether it's one of the languages I'm well grounded in, or find someone who can interpret on their behalf. Sorry to be such a cynic, but I work on a multitude of Slavic related articles (Eastern Europe, the Balkans, etc.) as well as Middle Eastern articles. I've encountered too many "my inglish not so mech good" dupes to feel overly sensitive about AGF where it's not merited. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: Having checked the user's global accounts, their home page is Korean Wikipedia (2 edits only - neither of which involved writing in Korean; no user page; no talk page bar a standard welcome) + French Wikipedia edits x 2 edits (again no user page, talk page or any edits requiring the use of French) + Chinese Wikipedia x 1 edit (no user page, talk page or edits requiring the use of Chinese) + English Wikipedia x 540 edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Who's Who in Military History
By Keegan and Wheatcroft. Does anyone have a copy of this? I'm trying to hunt down the last few missing articles from one of MadMAx's lists. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
- I just had a look on eBay and it's available there from about £3 (inc. P&P). Amazon don't seem to have it. That might be your best bet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thakns I'll consider that. It's a big book, and we only need to identify 18 more, most of whom may only get a passing mention. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
- Gday - I have a copy on my shelf. Will have a look now and see what I can do. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I must be dense - what info did you actually need from the book? I had a quick look and couldn't find any of those guys listed at the link provided in the book. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Massacre_of_Kalavryta#On_categorization_as_Violence_against_men
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Massacre_of_Kalavryta#On_categorization_as_Violence_against_men. Please join this discussion, which has unfortunately gotten a bit heated, on whether Massacre of Kalavryta should be added to the category of "Violence against men". Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Sources_for_sexual_violence_against_men
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Sources_for_sexual_violence_against_men. Please join this discussion on whether Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse should be in the category Category:Violence against men Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on this page regarding Bismarck's role as a peacemaker, which is nowhere near agreement and would benefit from an outside opinion or two. Can anyone look in (here) and comment? Thanks, 12:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I just nominated Kronan as a FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a reminder here.
Looking forward to your comments!
Peter Isotalo 15:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Kyle J. White, future MoH recipient
@Jwillbur: I have started a sandbox entry for Sergeant Kyle J. White, due to receive the Medal of Honor from President Obama on May 13th. All are welcomed to contribute; I plan to move the entry into mainspace concurrent with the award ceremony per WP:MILPEOPLE. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind. someone else went ahead and used the crystal ball. That sucks. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The redirect Insurgent attack on Fort Hood is under discussion. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 16#Insurgent attack on Fort Hood would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Problem editor on military bios
Our good friend YahwehSaves has recently come across my radar again. You may remember him from such events as Admin help requested - Edit war at Audie Murphy and this failed ANI. He is on a Combat Action Ribbon POV pushing crusade. He is a self-designated expert on all things military and is going around retroactively awarding CAR's and gold award stars on military bios where he believes they should be. He does not care if there are reliable sources only that he believes in fairness that they should have them and asks us to prove a negative in a Randy in Boisesque manner. Dealing with this editor made me stop editing for three months a couple of years ago. Granted, my leaving the project is no major loss, but his bad behavior has not been stopped and has thereby been enabled. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia and a general adherence to our standards is necessary, otherwise what do we have? EricSerge (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Eric, the only thing I can suggest is keep him talking, and patiently try to explain our policies on verifiability/sourcing/original research etc. It does seem to be an issue of competence rather than one of malice, so you might be able to reason with him. If he continues adding original research to articles, let me know (here or on my talk page or go to ANI) and I'll look at the possibility of a block, but talking is always preferable to blocking. Whatever you do, keep us in the loop—I'll do what I can, and I'm sure my fellow coordinators and perhaps dome other project members will contribute if they think they can help—but don't suffer in silence to the point that editing is no longer enjoyable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have nothing good to say about YahwehSaves. I've run into that user before and I wish they would leave Wikipedia forever. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Concur, sadly. He's shown in the past that he doesn't "do" the communication thing, and hasn't shown much willingness to work constructively in a collaborative environment. Intothatdarkness 22:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's always WP:AN (which is the appropriate venue for proposing community-based sanctions, up to and including a site ban) or WP:RfC/U if you can establish a pattern of disruptive editing and refusal to remedy it when it is pointed out to him... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 11:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- @MER-C: Can you provide more background on where material is suspected to have been taken from and/or background on this? Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this the relevant CCI cleanup subpage, Nick-D? Here's the "background" from there:
Idk if this was appropriate to post all that here, so please lmk and I'll delete it if not.. Cheers! JDanek007Talk 21:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, Drmies has posted on my talk page about INS Khukri (1958), which has close-paraphrasing and unreliable source issues (while Russell Phillips has been published, that company has published only his books and one public domain work, making them self-published sources). Is anyone out there interested enough to clean this up? There should be quite a few sources out there; the ship's sinking during India's war with Pakistan caused quite a stir. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
New simplistic article Invasion of Scandinavia during World War II includes Iceland, not sure Iceland is considered part of Scandinavia ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Scandinavia states that "Sometimes the term Scandinavia is also incorrectly taken to include Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Finland, on account of their historical association with the Scandinavian countries." So I suppose technically that is not correct - however Invasion of Scandinavia during World War II suggests that it is a common term used to refer to the invasions of Iceland, Denmark et al. so in a way its incorrectness may not necessarily invalidate the article - if people call it that, then that is what we should be writing about in an article, perhaps? S.G.(GH) ping! 21:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- The opening line: "The Invasion of Scandinavia is a common name for the German and British invasions in the region of Scandinavia during World War II..." is not backed up by any citations given; and does NOT seem to be the "common name" of the event(s). Also, "Scandinavia," by definition, does not historically include Iceland. I would suggest, perhaps, moving this page to Invasion of the Nordic countries during World War II or something similar. If not, perhaps a merge to World War II in Europe#Germany assumes dominance in northern Europe? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As an "Invasion" referrers to a nation aggressively, and unwantingly entering the territory of another, the answer would be "No", due to the fact that both Iceland and the Faroe Islands were not invaded by Nazi Germany. Iceland also, is not considered a art of Scandinavia. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the hits on Google Books refer to the potential for an "invasion of Scandinavia" by the warring parties, not the actual real-life landings themselves. Plus, Iceland is not Scandinavia, nor is Finland (which is depicted on the article's map). I've personally never heard of this "common name" used in the way the article does. Note also, that not a single one of the sources listed in the article use the name "Invasion of Scandinavia". This article is simplistic nonsense. Manxruler (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree completely. The German invasion of Denmark and Norway and the British invasion of Iceland were separate operations, and lumping them together like this isn't sensible. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)