User talk:Peacemaker67

G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please be civil).

Informal portrait of the editor as an young man

Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016

Hello. Thanks for closing the RfC, but I just wanted to double-check whether the closing statement was correct – you noted that the WP:NC-GAL guides us to use the demonym, but then said that the articles should be moved to "Taiwan xxx elections" rather than the demonym version "Taiwanese xxx elections". Could you clarify? Cheers, Number 57 10:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

G'day. Sure thing. I took into account the arguments questioning the validity of "Taiwanese" as an appropriate demonym for things proper to the Republic of China, and also the fact that both the United States and United Kingdom "xxx elections" use one of the common names of the nation-state instead of the demonym for valid reasons. To my mind, these two things combined with the consensus of those that voted and made arguments made it appropriate to diverge from the guidance of WP:NC-GAL in this case. I'm sorry if I didn't make my closure reasoning clearer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case, could I ask you to review the close. I agree there was a clear consensus for the move away from "Republic of China", but I can still see no consensus for Taiwan over Taiwanese. Arguments were made for both by a roughly equal number of editors, with several others simply supporting the move proposal as it stood (i.e. for the demonym). There was no killer argument in favour of avoiding following the guideline (you note arguments were made regarding British and American elections, but the fact that elections in the Republic of Ireland use "Irish" was raised as a counter-argument) so I would have expected the closure to go in line with the actual proposal. Cheers, Number 57 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I still think the close was good in avoiding the demonym. Consistency isn't everything. I gave greater weight to the arguments for Taiwan over Taiwanese because I thought they were stronger than those for Taiwanese. In particular, that the examples of United States/American and United Kingdom/British were significantly stronger than the counter-argument of Republic of Ireland/Irish. Of course, you can always ask for a review. I won't be offended. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks – what would be the best place to do so? Cheers, Number 57 09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus on the "best" place, but I suggest WP:AN. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Srb uprising

Speaking of the Srb uprising (can't believe there is a Croatian city called "Srb"!!) -- can you explain this very confusing excerpt:Nevertheless, Croatian authorities, under the organization of the Independent Democratic Serb Party (SDSS) still commemorate this date as the first day of an antifascist uprising. Some politicians in Croatia, including the President[who?] of the Croatian Party of Rights have condemned this commemoration.[28] The "anti-gathering" [clarification needed] in Srb is organized every year as a sign of protest against the commemoration.[clarification needed] The commemoration was always attended by members of the state leadership. Former president Stjepan Mesić was at the 2012 commemoration and called members of the "anti-gathering" the "quasi-patriots".[29] However, members of the state leadership were not present at the commemoration in 2012.[3][better source needed]

TO WIT:

• 1) "Croatian authorities, under the organization of the Independent Democratic Serb Party (SDSS) still commemorate this date" -- *2) "Former president Stjepan Mesić was at the 2012 commemoration and called members of the 'anti-gathering' the 'quasi-patriots'" -- wasn't Mesić the guy who gave "a speech in Australia in the early 1990s, where he said that the Croats 'won a victory on April 10th' (when the fascist aligned Independent State of Croatia was formed) 'as well as in 1945' (when the communist anti-fascists prevailed and the Socialist Republic of Croatia was formed), as well as that Croatia needed to apologize to no one for the Jasenovac concentration camp (i.e. the WWII Holocaust against Serbs and Jews)" (per Mesić article) -- so why would he be attending an Independent Democratic Serb Party antifascist commemoration?
• 3) "However, members of the state leadership were not present at the commemoration in 2012" -- this I understand and is unsurprising but do you know anything about the years since 2012, perchance. Seems unlikely they would skip 2012, and attend from 2013-2016, IMHO.are there really still Croatian authorities under the auspices of the Independent Democratic Serb Party?

Thanks, Quis separabit? 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I really don't know enough about the Srb uprising as yet. I only became properly aware of it as a result of starting the Radjenovic article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll bother you again in a week or so about it. I was going to use the verb "nag", but then I was afraid it might mean something different in Australian English than it does in the USA. Quis separabit? 23:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So, are there really still Croatian authorities under the auspices of the I checked the Independent Democratic Serb Party article which is unsourced and outdated. If the party still exists it is essentially irrelevant, IMHO, like Republicans in New England or Unionists in the Republic of Ireland, IMO. Quis separabit? 22:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer

Can you check if removal of info from the article is justified. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please also check deletions to {{Knight's Cross recipients of JG 54}} and {{Top German World War II Aces}}. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look into my question yet? You may find this link to the German Federal Archives useful. The Federal Archives have started digitizing the KC nomination and approval/rejection documents. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi MB, I'm not going to get involved with this, as I have a bad case of tennis elbow (literally), and can barely type. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Peacemaker67. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Djokovic question

Hi, in regards to the section about Djokovic's parents ethnicity, I think it is quite unjustified to close this section while leaving highly controversial thing is in, particularly as the consensus that was reached on the topic is far from clear as is the strength of the arguments on the side of "Croat-Montenegrin" origin of his parents. Novak himself never said anything about his mother being Croatian (except in Croatian right-wing tabloid "Slobodna Dalmacija" which is used in this topic as the only source of such a claim, and a Slovenian tabloid which just copy pastes the same text). Anyways, other then the fact that the source of this information is not credible at all, I think it is quite unnecessary to put anything about Novak's parents' ethnicity in the article as it will only cause more tension and nothing good will come of it. Again I must say if Djokovic said "my mother is Croatian" anywhere else except in some fictional conversation mentioned by a Croatian tabloid nobody would have anything against it, but this is just wrong. Cheers, Azarapat8 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

G'day. I think my explanation of the closure accords with the sources provided and the arguments made there. I don't propose to re-state those arguments here. Of course, you are free to ask for a review of my closure of that RfC, which would be best done at WP:AN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royal Yugoslav Navy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Royal Yugoslav Navy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting awards

I will like to add few things about K.e.coffman. He have no interest in building the military history encyclopedia, and is here to just deleting information and push for his own agenda, that is reduction of Nazi era military articles to the point of absurdity (because there were nazi and don't deserve for people to know "intricate" details of their life, or worst their military deeds). If you don't agree with him, he is calling his "friends" (such as ÄDA - DÄP, sometimes Kierzek and others) and start accusing editors, who disagree with him, admirer for the "neo-nazi".

I will like to put an example: he started removing awards from German military personnel during WWII, for the reason, I guess, it wasn't cited or cited to a neo-nazi ??writers??, while in reality that was probably put in the article in good faith many years ago by someone who forgot or bothered to cite. Even so if we take him serious, what he call neo-nazi publisher, surely there is stuff that's strictly factual like organizational data or movements, awards etc., is unlikely to be tainted?

Please see the edits by him on Theodor Scherer: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodor_Scherer&type=revision&diff=741679416&oldid=741670600 and look at ==Awards and decorations==.

What is the point of these? There are cited or in other cases is he bothered to check for sources? I looked at List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War II, and checked to find that the list contains persons who don't have citation source for their decorations such as Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal etc. and if we take what K.e.coffman is doing we should delete them all unsourced award or decorations. This must stop. HicManebimusOptime (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)