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

Miramar access: renewal

Peacemaker67, I just sent you an email about Miramar, but then noticed you want to renew rather than re-request. Please hold off on doing anything while I figure out if the two processes are the same or different. We onlyhave a very limited number of Miramar accesses granted. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've sent off your request data; it would be helpful to me if you would ping me when you rec'v the renewal from Miramar... Tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I had the free 7-day access, not the WP one. Will let you know when I get the renewal. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Apparently you had the WP one because your name is on our records (?). Anyhow, you've got mail...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T5

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 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) 05:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

The article Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T5

The article Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your support of my lengthy TBAN

Hello, I saw that under my appeal you posted this: "If HT is capable of editing neutrally and constructively in a less contentious area, I say let's see evidence of that." Since I don't want to exceed my 500 word statement by posting on the AE board, I offer you these diffs as evidence that I am perfectly capable of editing neutrally and constructively: [1], [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. And these are just some actual article edits, although I could provide many more examples of my playing well with others in the talk pages. My hope is that you will take a quick look and reconsider your support of my very lengthy ban, and agree with the consensus (save for two users) that I do not need to be benched for a further 6 months to better abide by the rules. It is the contentious nature of the political pages and the recency of the 2016 election (when emotions on all sides were still running high) that I chose to venture into those waters, perhaps unprepared for the high standards of WP:BLP and WP:BATTLEGROUND expected of editors. However, if you read my statement, I am confident that you will come to the conclusion that I am unusually qualified for a repeal of my ban. Thank you for reading. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

Speaking of BLP violations

What a BLP violating battleground this has become![10] In one of TTAAC's many attacks against another of this brothers, he said that anyone editing BLP articles shouldn't be allowed to do so if they slander political figures (read the subject heading of this edit) [11]. Well then, by his own logic he should be indeffed from political pages involving American politics. In fact, he even went as far as slandering his own President by accusing Obama (without evidence) of being the Muslim founder of a major terrorist organization:[12] The exact quote - "Classic NYT propaganda. Flynn was forced out for warning Obama—the "Founder of ISIS"—to stop!" This is beyond the pale, and this unstable mindset of his own doing has clearly spilled onto his own AE. I can't think of a greater BLP violation that accusing the President of the United States, without evidence, of being the creator of a homicidal terrorist group. That conspiracy theory slander alone implies the President himself is a homicidal maniac, considering that ISIS murders innocents for sport. Talk about BLP violation! I would agree with TTAAC then that anyone who is editing political articles about living people shouldn't be allowed to do so if they plan to angrily and deliberately slander law-abiding public servants.

If there was ever a case where an editor needs to be indeffed topic banned it is this troublemaker TTAAC: [13] I also just observed where usernmame TTAAC(nickn.) accused international admins of being part of a liberal conspiracy to silence American conservative editors, claiming "the fix is in":[14] Then he has the nerve to bring his case to another AE that doesn't involve him, hoping to manipulate any uninvolved editors into looking at him differently! In fact, the minute he became involved in his own AE,it became a WP:BATTLEGROUND over politics! That should speak volumes about whether he could ever be rehabiliated. He and his 'friends' are turning this into the liberal side versus the conservative side. What about being on the side of wikipedia? When politics are removed, this becomes a no-brainer. He's just a WP:NOTHERE who shouldn't come within 100 yards of a political article. The editor seems to do okay editing articles on videogames, his other passion, so maybe he should stick with that.

As a note on the side, as with any one posting their thoughts on your talk page please take what I have to say with a grain of salt as the saying goes since clearly this pushes a button on me. And sorry for jumping in like this, and if you feel like I'm being biased, then feel free to ignore me too. My english and communication is not the best. I'm originally from Italy and only a lurker here and this was brought to my attention by another brother. Maybe the xenophobic attacks suggesting that only American administrators should enforce sanctions on American politics struck a nerve with me. I don't have the cred or desire to take this concern to the AE there nor would I when it is currently a battlefield of political fundies on both sides of the coin. But I noticed TTAAC working with his friends to trick you and the other admins into thinking that this is only about "an innocent mistake" over his "first mistake" over "one revert." After looking into his edit history, he has gotten away with violating rules in all shapes and sizes multiple times. This is just "the first time" he was caught red-handed. Thank you for hearing me out paisan.94.177.241.76 (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with images

Greetings, Peacemaker. I have wanted for a while to take 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état to FAC, as it is a rather important article, and one that I've put a lot of work into. I think I can hold my own on prose, but the thing that scares me off is the images; so after your review of Operation PBFORTUNE, I figured I might ask you to take a look at them and possibly help me get them into shape for an FA. If you don't have the time/inclination, no worries: just thought I'd ask. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. If you'd like to get an assessment of any image issues, I suggest you ask Nikkimaria. She's my go-to-gal for image licensing, and advice you get from her will be better than anything you get from me. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Indef, Eh?

I just reverted a sock of a banned user 5 times at the Trump talk page. Where were you? Protecting the 'pedia? Who's minding the store to protect from disruption from people like me? Yeesh... Doc talk 09:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this does you any credit, frankly... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Greater Serbia

On this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Serbia&action=history

You have posted an opinion - Persistent disruptive editing: Failure to engage on talk.

Would you be so kind to explain: What "Persistent disruptive editing" are you talking about and what "Failure to engage on talk" are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A cursory review of this article history and your editing history makes it obvious what disruptive editing and absence of discussion Peacemaker is talking about. It will be equally obvious to any administrator asked to intervene. Stop it or be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, I'm posting here because of Peacemakers sentence "Failure to engage on talk".

This is my first Wiki edit ever, and I would really like to hear an explanation from Peacemaker.

What "Persistent disruptive editing" are you talking about and what "Failure to engage on talk" are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing for a complete explanation of disruptive editing means. In addition, please click on the links in the warning message that was left on your Talk page by Peacemaker67. General Ization ^Talk 03:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What General Ization said. All you are doing is re-inserting material with your demands about quotations. Go to the talk page and explain what your concerns are, others will respond, then a consensus will develop about the issue. The consensus will then be implemented. I have semi-protected the page for a few days for you to do what I suggest. A return to this same behaviour will likely result in some sort of sanction. Please read the links as suggested. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I still can't see what was disruptive editing by my side, especially "persistent".

My request for the origin (cite) of the term "Greater Serbia" was twice deleted without proper explanation. I returned the question back twice, and I corrected myself several times. What is "persistent disruptive" about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this further, the talk page of the article is the correct venue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have hard time to understand this. I'm arguing with you and I have to reach consensus with you in discussion you are not involved with?

I still can't see what was disruptive editing by my side, especially "persistent".

I'm really missing something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.138.86 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing the ability to follow simple instructions. Please move this discussion to Talk:Greater Serbia, where it belongs, as requested. General Ization ^Talk 04:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

My ability to follow simple instructions

I apologize, but I not just miss to follow simple instructions, but it seems I don't have idea about Wikipedia at all.

Maybe we can solve this if you advise me how to ask for the origin of some term.

It had to appear, and that had time and place.

How to ask for that on Wikipedia?

How to ask anything!?

Do I have to ask for consensus for that or what? I'm not allowed to ask for that before consensus?