User talk:Sturmvogel 66

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scoring

Very close. I was waiting for you to claim the "15 articles destubbed on any listed building or populated settlement - 50 points" section of the bonuses. You'll have to work it out what you're claiming on that and list all of your destubs in the other claims section of the main entries page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

On this I'm of the opinion that you should both be crowned the winner as it's been extraordinarily close and you and Cwmhiraeth have both performed astoundingly well, but only one person can win the main £100 prize!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the April 2016 Military History Article Writing Contest with an incredible 240 points from 26 articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, mate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Contest winner

		The Wales Barnstar of National Merit
		Congratulations for winning the April 2016 Awaken the Dragon contest along with Cwmhiraeth!! You (and Wales) should be very proud of the quality and quantity of work that you contributed to Wikipedia this month. Amazing effort, it really makes a different to the encyclopedia, and it's paid off for you! Thankyou!:-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on the win Sturmvogel, you can proudly display these on your user page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was fun. And many thanks to you for running for contest!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66 congratulations on winning in the Awaken the Dragon contest! Could you please email me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk from the email in which you want your prize to be sent to?. Thank you. Karla Marte(WMUK) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Caps misunderstanding

Hello.

Wherever did you get that idea from that numerals don't count as first word, and that the second word thus should be capitalized? Please show me the applicable guideline or style guide.

And why don't you apply it consistently throughout the article, for instanc, on the complement, "1660 officers and crewmen", which, according to you should be "1660 Officers and crewmen"?

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, because I've gotten about 60-odd FAs passed using that exact formulation. If this is a problem then you need to start participating at WP:FAC. I don't think the issue is actually addressed anywhere in the MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so it's time we find out. I've started a talk page discussion, and a discussion at WP:DRN (because I suspect there will be few other people at the talkpage).

HandsomeFella (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And how do you explain the "1660 officers and crewmen"? HandsomeFella (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't because I didn't pay that much attention to it. I've self-reverted as I've looked at it some more and it does look better uncapitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That was an ... awfully quick turn to DRN. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Royal Sovereign (1891) 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

HMS Ramillies (1892)

Hi, I notice that you've been working on some for the Royal-Sovereign class battleships as well. Ramillies is up for GAR and it's about to pass, but the reviewer has queried the following phrase: "She had been constructed at such a slight tilt that it took nearly an hour and a half to travel down the slips and into the water". I can see why someone who is not versed in ship design would not get this, but I am not sure how to make it more clear to the average reader. Do you have any advice? Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

I think that Burt shouldn't have used the word tilt; it makes me think of something tilted from side to side. What I think is that he meant that the slipway had so little elevation that gravity wasn't much help in launching her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much clearer way of saying it! Thank you, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Re: Your message on HMS Lancaster

Thanks for your suggestion.

== HMS Lancaster == Here's a GA-rated article on one of Lancaster's sister ships that you can use as a model to incorporate all of the voyage material you added: HMS Essex (1901).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain: I prepared the list on the whereabouts of the HMS Lancaster, to help me in my research of the History of Veracruz in 1914. I was more interested in dates and places than in events not related to my area of study. I simply thought I'd share it with Wikipedia, in the format that better suited my purposes.

As to the HMS Essex, finding her logbook in the Internet was something quite extraordinary for me. I vividly remember that Sunday morning, finding it after a Google Search, e-mailing one of the curators of the collection with a critical question (Re 21 Apr 1914, what does "US Pct B/S" mean?), getting her reply an hour or so afterwards (mind you: Sunday morning in Mexico City, mid afternoon in London), and corroborating my claim (based, of course, on US sources) that there had been no terrestrial attack on the Naval Academy that day - a key concept contrary to the official Mexican History of the es:Occupación estadounidense de Veracruz de 1914. HMS Essex and HMS Berwick, by their presence in Veracruz on those fateful days, were front-line witnesses to the events. What a delight to be doing research in times of Internet and Wikipedia! I gave a talk on this subject, at a Symposium presided by the Mexican Navy, in Veracruz, June 2014.

I've just noticed that it was I who edited the logbook reference into the HMS Essex (1901) article , on 2 Apr 2014 -- just after some of your edits!

I will be getting back to you, on other items.

Thanks again for your message. I'll keep it in mind.Wkboonec (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll look forward to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TFA 31 May

I would like to run Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier on 31 May, but as you had one of your battleship articles running earlier in the month at short notice, you may feel that another is an imposition. It won't be scheduled before next Friday, so give it a bit of thought & let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Shokaku class ran last week, but I have no problem if you want to schedule another one of my articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, of course it did ... I'm losing my marbles. Forget this, I'll try not to trouble you for a while and enquire about medication. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just make sure to get the good stuff!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Backlog Drive

Greetings. I was wondering if you could start a new backlog reduction drive. My proposal can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Lists of Wars Backlog.--Catlemur (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Devonport Dockyard on West Country Challenge list

Hi You added Devonport Dockyard to the core list for the WWest Country Challenge. It s a dab page - did you mean HMNB Devonport (which is already on) or Devonport Naval Base? Could I also ask a favour - when you add entries can you also add them to the relevant county pages please (as it is doing my head in trying to keep them in sync).— Rod ^talk 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll fix it pronto. And I'll add the new entries to the various county pages as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Devonshire

Hello, According to the article on the Duke of Devonshire there is only a slight connection between the the dukes and the county of Devon so this seemed too little to make a Core article. If you decide otherwise I won't object to it being added again.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, the connection between the title and their nominal geographic location seems pretty thin in general once the Stuarts start ennobling people right and left, but it's not anything I feel strongly about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Sulina?

I'm not finding any sources online for it? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to do more research to definitively state whether or not any "battle" actually happened. If it did it was probably just a short bombardment as Midilli only had 105s until early '17 when she swapped them out for 150s. Not quite ready to send it to AfD, though, as I'd really like to get this guy tapping into Romanian-language stuff if we could. OTOH, he's argumentative and a Romanian nationalist enough that it may not be worth the effort to bring him up to speed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not just that haha, I'm reminded of a quote about Gamergate that seems to apply here (parahprased): "the worst they do is force you to waste your time." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Oak (1892)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Royal Oak (1892) 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 Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Article on HMS Essex - the "Transcript" has links to the original logbook

You may have overlooked: the "Transcript" is much more than that, it is actually the original logbook.

For instance, for "21 April 1914" (crucial for the understanding of the US Occupation of Veracruz), in the line just above the heading, the transcript shows the link: http://s3.amazonaws.com/oldweather/ADM53-41085/ADM%2053-41085-060_0.jpg

I suggest the reference "Transcript" be changed to something more meaninful like "Logbook (original and transcipt)" or "Logbook (with transcript)" or simply "Logbook".

Having the "Royal Navy Log Books of the World War 1 Era" online has been quite extraordinary for rewriting the history of Veracruz in 1914.

Saludos cordiales, Wkboonec (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Archived

Hey man, I archived the first 500 or so sections of your talk page because it was slowing my entire computer down. I hope that's alright! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I had to laugh! But you might consider updating your machine if you can. I've got a couple of old 2GB RAM sticks of that I can let you have for cheap if you're using an elderly desktop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your computer is, but mine's actually pretty new—although it could be the browser, I suppose. In any case, editing all of that was a pain and slow. :-p Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how that shouldn't have been a problem. Huh, all I ever did was go to the end and edit the individual section. Easy peasy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)

The article HMS Royal Sovereign (1891) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (1891) 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Revenge (1892)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Revenge (1892) 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 Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hey Sturmvogel, so I'm working on end-of-round stuff for the GA Cup, and it has been brought to my attention that three of the articles you submitted were passed to GA, right under the deadline, on the 29th. Technically, they qualify for Round 3, but it's your responsibility to mark them as passed on your submissions page. If I were to count them, it wouldn't change the results, anyway, and since they passed during Round 3, they wouldn't be eligible to count in the finals. You'd still move onto the finals even if I didn't count them, although it's possible that you'd move forward as a pool winner and not as a wildcard. All that to say that since you didn't mark them as passed before the end of the round, I'm unable to count them towards your final Round 3 score. But you moved forward anyway, so congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, honestly I forgot about the deadline. I was sort of thinking that it was the end of the month. So do they count for this next round?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. No, the judges have decided to not count these reviews. No worries, though, you moved on to the finals, and you're posed well to victory. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Royal Oak (1892)

The article HMS Royal Oak (1892) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Royal Oak (1892) 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 Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review

Hi Sturmvogel66, You may recall that some time ago you carried out a good article review for me. That article, HMS Emerald (1795), is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1 and I wondered if you might make some comments and even lend your support if you thought it met the criteria? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Anglesey/Gwynedd Challenge

Planning on runnng this without prizes on June 13-20. If you're interested in contributing put your name down at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 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 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of 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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bonville-Courtenay feud/GA1

Stormbird, are you too caught up for this? If so, would you rather I renominate? Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Anglesey-Gwynedd Challenge

Just a reminder that this is now open!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

As you can see, precisely 1 week. May we please talk now? 79.113.130.4 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but be advised that I'm in a conference for the next few days and can't really respond until things are over for the day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I only wish to ask you, to try and enable me to edit. I have unique things to do, that nobody ever done before, nor do they plan on doing. Time has passed since I got banned, and I have changed. I refined my editing skills, and now I too will only edit and create based on sources, even Romanian sources at times. There are many things about my country that have been left to oblivion, and all I want is to be allowed to bring them to surface, for they do not deserve to be left to oblivion. Romanian battles, Romanian technological achievements, all need to be spread about, and as I am at the source, I think I can say that I can do it the best. We are humans, we come and go, but the Wiki will likely be here for the coming generations. I do not want those future generations not to know about Romania's great history, often overlooked for reasons I genuinely cannot comprehend. Take this for instance: After the secret was revealed in 1914 that Romania was part of the Triple Alliance, people continued to call it the Triple Alliance, despite being revealed to have a 4th member, as if we did not even exist. And that genuinely hurts me. Or sometimes ignoring Romanian military contribution and overlapping us with other powers, even though their troops had little bearing on our actions. Like calling the Allied forces on Romanian land in WW1 Russo-Romanian, as if the Russians were the majority when they were only 50,000 out of 700,000, the rest, the overwhelming majority being Romanians. Or calling "Germans" the mostly Romanian force that besieged Odessa, as you yourself saw. Or "forgetting" to mention us at the invasion of Crimea, way too often stating that "The Germans occupied Crimea", again, as if we would not even exist. This is abusive and dismissive, towards us as a nation, and especially to those who gave their lives for Romania, as Romanians, only to be ignored or labelled as something else. I want to correct this grave set of injustices towards us, and to spread about what we have good. Please, allow me to do that. Help me even, if you'd please. I know my mistakes and I regret my ways, all I ask is 1 more chance to genuinely contribute with good faith, reliable sources, and unaddressed information. I am also aware of my uncivil anger-induced behavior, but I will gladly control it if that would mean being able to edit in peace, and not having to fear that it would be undone in hours. Just please. Help me. 79.113.130.4 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand where you're coming from, but a non-trivial portion of what you're doing smacks of Romanian nationalism. We all have biases, of course, and we need you to recognize yours and try to account for it.

The way to do what you want is to make changes verified with reliable sources at every turn, and taking care to make sure that those reliable sources are accurately reflected in your edits. If, for example, it's a battle between Russo-Romanian and German forces, the way forward isn't to change "Russo-Romanian"—the use of "Russo" first there does not connotate that the Russians had more troops. What you could do is document troop strengths in the infobox, with reliable sources. The article itself shouldn't literally say "this was a Romanian-led battle"—just write it like a normal battle article (here's an example) and people can judge for themselves. Each case differs, but generally speaking if it's not normally included in a Wikipedia article (eg the refit of that Romanian cruiser, which at best deserves one sentence in the text in my opinion), you shouldn't be adding it.

The bottom line is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Your edits need to reflect that. Also like Sturm has said, it would be a lot easier if you'd register an account, if only so we could ping you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But Mister Ed, I do have an account. I was banned due to my fury issues and careless editing, but I changed and still changing. I said some bad and hateful things, I admit, but right now, all I wish is to contribute with new things. I already got the srouces for what I want to do. Took me hours to find them. All I ask is 1 more chance. Under supervision, don't really care, just 1 more chance to properly contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.4 (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)