User talk:Torpilorul

Welcome!

Hello, Brown Water Admiral, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citation style

May I recommend you check the shortened footnote template? It takes less space, you don't have to repeat details on each ref, and is more web-friendly. Plus, there's a nice form for filling the fields of the "cite book" template in the toolbar of the edit box, in the "Templates" dropdown (you may have to select "Cite" on the toolbar first). Regards. Anonimu (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to MILHIST

Hello! I work as a coordinator at MILHIST, Wikipedia's collaborative project for military history of all types. I'd recommend you check it out; if you are interested in getting our newsletter, add your name here. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just added my username, appreciate the invitation. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm Classicwiki. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of monitors of World War II without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Classicwiki. I simply figured they were not of much use due to being red links. However, the one that does have an article was converted in 1918 to a sea-going monitor, so I took myself the liberty to re-add that edit. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of NMS Mihail Kogălniceanu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article NMS Mihail Kogălniceanu 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of NMS Mihail Kog?lniceanu

The article NMS Mihail Kog?lniceanu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:NMS Mihail Kog?lniceanu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (NMS Constanța) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating NMS Constanța, Brown Water Admiral!

Wikipedia editor Bri just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for your new article!

To reply, leave a comment on Bri's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NMS Delfinul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulzer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of NMS Amiral Murgescu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article NMS Amiral Murgescu 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Could you perhaps include more detail on some of the citations to sources that you're regularly using? Such as linking Google Books previews and ISBN numbers for other people to more easily identify and verify the sources in question. (e.g. <ref>Donald A Bertke, Gordon Smith, Don Kindell, [https://books.google.com/books?id=ULQOBAAAQBAJ World War II Sea War, Volume 4: Germany Sends Russia to the Allies], p. 323, ISBN 9781937470036</ref> ). Or if you want you could take it a step further and use one of our citation templates available in the toolbar above the edit box under 'Cite'. Alcherin (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted, but forgive me for being blunt enough to say that since quite a good chunk of the articles I created so far were rated B-class, there doesn't seem to be any real problem. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a problem, just saying that it's more convenient for anyone looking into the sources (e.g. other editors). Alcherin (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Action off Măcin) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Action off Măcin, Brown Water Admiral!

Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Interesting!

To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone Greetings! I have a question. What exactly is reviewing? How does it work? Where can I see it? I received messages about my pages being reviewed before, but...there was nothing on the Talk page, nothing edited in, where am I supposed to look? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Brown Water Admiral. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of NMS Amiral Murgescu

The article NMS Amiral Murgescu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:NMS Amiral Murgescu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military History Newcomer of the Year 2017

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you this barnstar as a runner up for the 2017 Military History Newcomer of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2017. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to have your input

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Number 31-class motorboat) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Number 31-class motorboat, Brown Water Admiral!

Wikipedia editor Chandan Guha just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for adding Number 31-class motorboat. Cheers.

To reply, leave a comment on Chandan Guha's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Chandan Guha (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 8.8 cm SK C/30 naval gun, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janes WW1

Hi Torpilorul. Please let me have your email and I will send scan of the Romanian sections of pages 294-295. Davidships (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidships Here y'go: bota_tobias@yahoo.com Torpilorul (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just sent. By all means email me if any queries (I only have a few naval volumes as warships are not my main interest). Davidships (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Romanian Danube Flotilla) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Romanian Danube Flotilla, Torpilorul!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (NMS Mărăști) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating NMS Mărăști, Torpilorul!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (NMS Mărășești) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating NMS Mărășești, Torpilorul!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Another excellent article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Milhist wikiproject

Hi Torpilorul, would you please add {{MILHIST}} to the talk page of articles you create (Other appropriate wikiprojects would also be good). It'll help get some eyes on your pages sooner. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Torpilorul for extensive efforts to expand articles relating to the Romanian Navy. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 10:41 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OWNing Articles

Hi Torpilorul, I think the work you do is great. Editors who comb through print sources for the wiki are awesome. However, I just wanted to let you know that these edits ([1][2]) might be interpreted by some as trying to WP:OWN a page. While you are free to correct incorrect information if it isn't backed up by sources, comments like "Go ahead and plaster your stuff all over my articles or whatever, just make sure to 'source' them" that use personal pronouns such as "my" are frowned upon per the ownership of content policy linked above. I would suggest you strike that particular sentence, just in case someone were to use it in an ANI against you. Sorry for having to introduce myself to you under these circumstances, and thank you for your hard work. Nanophosis (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, that Italian guy is stubborn like a mule, I'm sorry that he got me so fired up. But I feel my work disrespected, you know. I mean...I pour all this time, finding multiple literary sources, and he comes out of nowhere, saying that it's all wrong, and "proving" that using some easily-editable website. I use websites too, but I don't base my claims on them. They're an occasional sauce I serve, not the main dish. The book is the bedrock for any claim. I'll be honest I'm not sure if I should keep fighting back. This is getting a bit too high-profile, and I might attract the wrong kind of attention. Torpilorul (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, we all get fired up and make rash decisions sometimes. For what it's worth, I agree that the source used by the other editor was questionable, maybe even user-generated. If you feel that you can calm down and resolve the dispute without breaking guidelines, feel free to continue the dispute, just be civil and don't do anything that you might regret later. Remember, collaboration is what builds Wikipedia, and even if other editors are frustrating we still all need to work together. Regards, Nanophosis (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M-36

Just out of personal information-curiosity. There is another potential Romanian Navy victory that I have never seen reported in English sources. Soviet submarine M-36 of Malyutka class suffered an heavy attack by gunboat Sublocotenent Ghiculescu on 23 August 1942 right after M-36 torpedoed and sunk German tug "Ankara" in low-waters. Submarine returned to base, transfered in Caspian Sea by rails and then returned to Black Sea on 16 October 1943 (almost one entire year later). The first time she went back to sea was on 4 January 1944, during post-repair sea-trail: submarine disappeared without trace left (Kobuleti area in Georgia), war and post-war research found nothing. Currently it is believed by Russian authors M-36 was lost as result of hasty/incorrect repair. Despite the time passed, this would make a full individual victory for Sublocotenent Ghiculescu. Lupodimare89 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spy ship

Hi, Torpilorul, glad to see y're back. Do know more on Darss intelligence collection ships, like for example Alerta (A-111)? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, sorry. I'm not into modern warships, my preferred area of study is 1860's to 1940's. Torpilorul (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of major Word War II warships built by minor powers

The article List of major Word War II warships built by minor powers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization with ad hoc definitions of "major" ships and "minor" powers. Unlikely that there is any WP:RS that discuss it in depth, so fails WP:LISTN.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Ad-hoc"? Mister, that you couldn't be bothered to do some basic research is not my fault. I thought such concepts come standard for anyone at least somewhat versed in this subject matter. That being said, I did add two lines that specify what the terms "major warship" and "minor power mean", using the respective Wiki articles of the two categorizations. Again, you could have just asked me to add more details, not outright ask for my hard work to be deleted. If I sound somewhat disrespectful here I'm sorry, but I find it hard to respect people who disrespect my work. Torpilorul (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions

If you start to mass delete material because you do not agree with it you are going to end up in a bad place. I would advise you against it, your reasoning is not all that good ("I do not like it", you need RS challenging a claim).Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you need some logic and common sense. You don't get much more NON-Fascist than this.

No you need RS. [Night of the Long Knives].Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reinforce this advice. Stop what you are doing. I quickly identified four academic sources that say that the WWII Romanian regime was fascist. It is clearly a pretty mainstream academic position on Romania during the war. If you continue with this campaign, it will not end well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

You need to tone down the rhetoric and avoid using words like retarded or (what looks like) calling other editors comments disgusting. If you carry on dowm this route you are going to end up at ANI, and your behavior is going to get you a block. You should follow what you said here [[3]] and drop this matter, and I would add your tone.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm done. For real this time. And you can tell this "ANI" that I don't retract anything. I stand by all what I said because there is nothing untrue there. Torpilorul (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And please read wp:npa wp:or and wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Look, I'm calm now. I apologize for getting so fired up. Especially that I didn't even bother to find sources for my point. I'll try to find material for my case, and leave this discussion as it is now be. Torpilorul (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time wasting, or clarifying editing processes and training?

I don't think you wasted people's time at the milhist talk: I think your reflection will improve your editing! Apologising early and calming down is good work. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that's nice to hear. I tend to have certain bursts sometimes, get too engaged and fired up by a topic. But if I push on, it does nothing but disservice to both me and the topic. What can I say, I'm a young soul. Full of energy and dreams, turned 20 just 1 month ago. Unlike most other Romanians, I retained our traditional "cult of work", which powered me through days-worth of research, of digging through Google Books like a gopher in order to make my ship articles. But it is very clear now: I need to use this attitude for non-naval topics too. Torpilorul (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fifelfoo. Take away what there is in the discussion, it wasn't a waste of time if you learned something that will help your editing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crimea Shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Sevastopol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romania in the Battle of the Atlantic

I know how much you feel Romania's contribution to WWII is unrecognised but I don't feel your edit in the above article is justified. Even if it was true the training of one U-Boat commander considering how many people were involved is insignificant. Looking at Eckharts history he had been a U-boat captain since 12 February 1941 on U-28 and was responsible for training officers, its therefore more likely that he went to Romania as a specialist to train the captains of the new submarines Romania was building. Lyndaship (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I was most certainly unaware of that. Anyway, from VIIA to VIIC is quite a leap. I'd be more inclined to accept a deletion of my edit in its initial form, but now that Romania has been "demoted" from belligerent to supporter, I don't think it's a problem if it stays. It doesn't say something that's untrue, and it barely affects the article as a whole. Besides, again, why he didn't return to a VIIA U-boat? His work aboard Delfinul helped him advance to VIIC, that's something too I guess. Also, I don't feel Romania's contribution to WWII is unrecognised. It's obviously a fact. I've been through countless instances, when in at most half an hour I could go through Google Books to find sources and then make an edit that you guys couldn't be bothered to do in YEARS! You guys find no value in our WW2 military, we've been thrown by postwar historiography to the dustbin of history and most of you appear to think we should stay there. So please, don't tell me that I feel, I know it for a fact. And I'm here to bring justice. Torpilorul (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please substitute believe for feel in my initial post. I have removed your edit as you said you would be more inclined to accept that in your reply Lyndaship (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The chronic "forgetting" of Romania

Hi, I refer to your posts at MilHist.

There are likely many reasons why Rommania's history in WWII has not been (in your opinion) accurately represented. I am not disagreeing with you intrinsically. I sincerely doubt that there has been any deliberate or intentional agenda involved on the part of individuals or collectively at WP. As Peacemaker has suggested, the best way to fix this is just get on with it. I would expand on Nick-D's observation. Your posts at MilHist appear very passionate and partisan. I am not criticising you for that but caution, that you don't want this to work against you. Use the best sources you can. Be objective and neutral. Remember, you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the Milhist section, it all comes from a desire to not be alone anymore. It's really not easy, to be the only one who cares about something and doing all the work, you know. I tried to rally people to my cause. Not with propaganda, but with facts. But when I showed them reasons to do it, Nick-D called me a partisan and told me to stop. Call me paranoid, but to me there is clearly an "old guard" in Milhist who wants to keep things as they are now, and not make things right for Romania. Probably because of "Muh Holocaust" or something. Torpilorul (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Axis powers

G'day Torpilorul. I've reverted your change to the structure of Axis powers for now. Please discuss this change on the talk page, as it appears consensus is against you at this stage. You may, by using reliable sources and reasoning, convince others regarding the changes you would like. But edit warring won't get you that result, you'll just get sanctioned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

antisemitism

Your last rant an ANI was unnecessary and is almost certainly going to get you a block. It is one thing to say you are not concerned about genocide, quite another to say (in effect) you support it (by saying it is what we wanted). You should have listened to those of us who tried to tell you how to avoid a block, instead you seem to be determined to get one. It is not hard to believe that any advice I give will be listened to, as you are driven by such a desire to right wrongs you are just not going to take the steps necessary yo be able to continue to edit.Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are also not a lab for you to test your social experiments on, that alone means you are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather are here to make points (and score them). That is unacceptable. You (not your views or opinions) are why you are going to get blocked, your inability to STFU when it is in your interests to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account indefinitely as you have shown fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia as not being a place to righting great wrongs nor is it the platform for you to advocate your political beliefs, even if it is being done in good faith. This is an example of tendentious editing and is not acceptable by our standards of user conduct. There is a emerging consensus from the noticeboard discussion that you should not be able to continue to edit, hence this decision. To appeal this block, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I sincerely doubt you are treating me very fairly. After almost a year of toiling, I have a slip and suddenly I'm banned forever. My under-served area of work, which badly needs me, will get dusty again. I got no warning, no temporary ban, just poof: bye forever. I do not think I deserve this. Look, I know and acknowledge I made mistakes, and they deserve to be sanctioned. I do not ask you to unblock me, I ask you to set an expiration date for the block. Torpilorul (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Torpilorul, an indefinite block is not an infinite block, it is merely a block with an unspecified time limit. Read the guide to appealing blocks that Alex linked above, do some serious introspection so that you understand what got you into trouble with Wikipedia norms and expectations. Once you do (and assuming you wish to continue contributing constructively), file an unblock request explaining how you will change the behavior that got you into trouble, and why the block is no longer necessary. You need to take to heart the advice you've been given, both above by Slatersteven and by others at ANI, and take responsibility for the fact that your own actions have led you to be blocked. Blocks are not meant to be punishment, but rather they are used to prevent disruption. You've made many good contributions here (and I hope you can continue to do so), But you've also been disruptive, and I sincerely hope you can find a way to curtail that aspect of your editing. Mojoworker (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...yeah...words are really nice, but it's another thing when you get to experience it. This...this is Hell for me. All my hard work is now at the mercy of everyone who doesn't like me very much, and I can do nothing to prevent anything, I can't even use my sandbox as a deposit, so I made a special section on the top of the talk page where I will save my work. As for the appeal...I will do my best, but I sincerely doubt it will pass, regardless how well I word it. Haven't you seen all the mob gathered against me? I really don't think everyone will be pleased with my words, regardless of what they are. One will oppose, and that will be it. I truly, do not wish on anyone what I feel right now. The bitter feeling of hopelessness...I regret everything in the past few days. I didn't know I've done this bad, to get the I-ban right off the bat. I will try, but this really seems like the end of the road for me. Torpilorul (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it's stressful. But it's just Wikipedia, take some time away from it and relax a little and come back in a week or two and address your block with a well considered unblock request. There's plenty of time to get things resolved, just don't do anything stupid and rash to dig yourself deeper into the hole you're in. Your remarks at ANI were very inflammatory, but your expression of regret is a good start – and it only takes one administrator to unblock you, but you might want to start an honest and calm dialog with Alex Shih, even before any unblock request. Perhaps you should consider imposing a topic ban on yourself and agree not to edit Romania related articles for a period of time (lengthy enough that it will truly be a painful sacrifice for you), and edit other areas of Wikipedia in the interim. Or perhaps a WP:1RR, or some combination. But first, I suggest you move the special section on the top of the talk page off wiki – just keep it on your computer. I've seen editors lose access to their talk page for keeping things like that on their talk page while blocked. You probably should only be discussing things related to your block, or answering questions from other editors. Mojoworker (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed that section as you suggested. And I'll talk to Alex in a week if he does not contact me, then appeal the ban in two. Yeah, that's my plan. Also, fair question: why are there so many people at the ANI doubting my capacity to work with Romanian themes, when I've been doing it without issues for almost a year? I will accept fault over my mistakes, but people being stuck-up and not looking up my work to inform themselves is not my fault. Torpilorul (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No but making it about them and not you is. Any appeal based upon "but the other guy" is going to fail.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, noted. Torpilorul (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven is right, don't try to deflect blame, just focus on your own behavior. The reviewing admin will look at your editing history. As to your question: I don't know – human nature to be lazy (and they have no interest in WWII, so no incentive to look)? And perhaps what you said was of great concern to many of them, causing them to question your objectivity without the perceived need to look further. And there are lots of drama-mongers and shit-stirrers at ANI, probably each with their own motives. Ultimately it's pointless conjecture. Mojoworker (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am legitimately stumped by how fired up people got by my statements. I admit that I'm guilty, I saw them getting stirred up at first but then proceeded anyway being curious to say where things would go. Big mistake, I know. But truly, I spoke like this, about such subjects with fellow Romanians, and it was just a regular talk. Culture differences probably. Differences which I tried to explain... Torpilorul (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you meant by the following quote (which I think is the one that people took offense to)?

"You know why Antonescu killed all those Jews? Because he was the man of the country, he served the country, and did what the country wanted. And Romanians - in their majority - wanted the Jews out. It wasn't just him, it was most of the nation. If those tasked with killing the Jews would have cared, they would have resigned. But most never even tried to save one. During the Iasi Pogrom, railroad workers beat the Jews with hammers. They had no obligation to do that. Antonescu, merely did his job as the leader of Romania. And before you jump, let me just tell you, you have absolutely no right to criticize us. There is no way your countries can ever get into our shoes and prove that they'd have done better. We had 4-5% Jewish minority, for over half a century. We had our 1878 independence recognition, conditioned by giving them citizenship."

I realize you're not a native speaker of English, so something might have been "lost in translation", so to speak. I may be reading things in a more charitable light towards you, but my interpretation is something like the following, with my added italic text:

"Antonescu, merely did his job as the leader of Romania. And before you jump, let me just tell you, you have absolutely no right to criticize us. There is no way your countries can ever get into our shoes and prove that they'd have done better at protecting the Jewish population. Until WWII, Romania had done a relatively good job – We had 4-5% Jewish minority, for over half a century. We had our 1878 independence recognition, conditioned by giving them citizenship."

Or did you mean something else? Mojoworker (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that Antonescu was not a mastermind, he didn't have the idea of dealing with the Jews, he's not this supreme boogeyman of the Romanian Jewry. There are thousands of people who could be in his place, and treat the Jews no differently. I will try again, to explain the Romanian psyche of the time, with the risk of being called "apologetic", "denialist" or any other buzzword. Three points, need to be understood. Number 1: the recognition of our independence in 1878 was conditioned by us giving citizenship to the Jews. We didn't want to do it, we were coerced by the West. And that's the snowball starting to roll down the hill. Number 2: Jews represented 4-5% of our population, a rather large minority. And number 3: this endured, for 6 decades, 1878-1938. By "other countries not having the right to criticize us", I expressed my honest opinion that - not having been in our shoes and experience these 3 points - they shouldn't be so virulent to criticize us before asking themselves how much better would they have done in our position. As for me liking Antonescu. Look, most of the Romanian population was antisemitic at that time. It's not something I take pride in, but it's a fact. And Antonescu, as leader of the nation, heeded the desires of his people. Again, I am not saying it was the right thing, I am not saying Antonescu did the right thing, I am not saying the Romanian population did the right thing, I am not saying the local Jews deserved it. My point is very simple: the majority of the nation wanted it, and Antonescu made it happen. This is the reason for my stance. Such leaders are rare in Romanian history, most were up there for themselves. Torpilorul (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand your position more fully – your view of Antonescu seems similar to the admiration many Americans have of Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson. Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly the comparison I was thinking. He was something we lack today and badly need: a patriot at the helm, who literally fought for the country in actual wars. We've had plenty of voevodes in the Middle Ages who fought wars for the country. I often think of Antonescu as "the last voevode", since he was the last ruler to truly fight for this country. He stood up to Hitler and secured Romania's sovereignty within the Axis. He clamped down on theft and such. He was a man of his word, truly honorable. At least he died with honor. Think of him as a modern Vlad Tepes, sort of. As for the Soviets, I maintain that their judgement of him should be considered null. The Soviet Union was the mother of all war crimes, but was on the winning side so nobody cared. To have the Soviet Union call you a war criminal is the very definition of hypocrisy. Torpilorul (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mojoworker Right, so because I've been blocked before my case was even archived, I'll have to defend myself here, with the hope that you'll carry on my message, as you did before. For one, I am not Romanian-and-proud, or whatever his name is. I've looked through his edit history. This guy clearly used no sources half the time, cussed at his fellow editors (I never did this and I'd never do it) and showed no intent in creating articles, which is what I started my Wiki career with. It's true though that we may have some similar views. If we Romanians choosing Antonescu in 2006 as the 6th greatest Romanian ever wasn't enough of a clue, many Romanians think similarly on this topic. Also, I am determined to never - no matter how desperate - use my IP to avoid my block. That would be acceptance of defeat, treating my block as infinite. As for the local Holocaust, look, it is very hard for me to be distraught by it to the extent people like Nick-D expect. After the Soviets occupied Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in 1940, they deported hundreds of thousands of ethnic Romanians to Siberia, and they never returned. And did the same with POWs, 130,000 in August 1944 alone. Not to mention those sent to the gulags after the war, in both local camps and again, in Siberia. Virtually all died slow, agonizing deaths. The reason why it's hard for me to care about the local Holocaust to the extent expected, is that we Romanians had our own Holocaust. With probably greater number of victims. Disclaimer: I am referring strictly to the local Holocaust, in terms of numbers. I am very much aware that the whole thing has a much greater number of victims, and it was much more horrid. Also, I got a question: If I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, then what have I been doing in the past 11 months, spending hours a day on Google Books in order to find stats about warships? Torpilorul (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"spastic" is (in the context you used it) a cuss word and attitudes (and language) like that will get talk page access revoked. Keep it polite and respectful, you are the one before the beak.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I removed it. Also, can you agree that I'm being smeared here to a certain extent? Being accused of being someone else, being told that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia despite this being demonstrably wrong by the virtue of my work (anyone can make a few clicks and see the articles I've created, it's all technical, warships stats I've spent days-worth of hours to find), and I've also been blocked before my case was archived, so I can't even defend myself properly anymore. I will hold responsibility for my mistakes as per the WPs I've disrespected (and which I'll address in my appeal after studying them more), but I don't think it's right to be wrongly accused by people who don't even know me or my work. Torpilorul (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said at the ANI that was could not really detect any major problems with your POV. I have not read the evidence of "socking" so cannot comment. And just because you have only created technical articles does not mean you have not in the past had some POV pushing issues, but you have always accepted when told to stop. But you attitude at the ANI did you no good, your statement about how you had deliberately tried to see how far you could push it lost you my sympathy. I think an unblock might not be problematic, and I can think of plnty of users whose actions have been as bad (or worse) then what you have actually done (rather then said) who had been allowed to get away with it based upon being experts in a topic area. I would advise you to walk away for two weeks and come back with an abject (if not abasing) apology and a promise to strictly adhere to policy (Possibly even an agreement to not edit certain topics).Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am most definitely not going to edit on articles people most likely are afraid I will mingle with. I have a strict domain: war machines, and battles involving them. And I'm content with that. I don't do biographies, I don't deal with people on a case by case basis, I don't do social or racial stuff, I'm just about war machines and their operational use. I may have slipped from my field a few times, but I'll make sure that it won't happen again. I will abide by the policy, but first I gotta finish reading it, and make sure I understand all that it implies. Also, I will share this with you. An important part of the reason I started what led me to ANI is, honestly, a "slow day at the office" case. I've been dealing with the Royal Romanian Navy for the past 11 months, but thing is...I'm kinda done. Did just about every warship or warship class/warship category, every operation in both World Wars, everything. I kinda didn't know what to do, I was split between armored and air forces, on which one to fully engage for the moment. So, to kill some time, I started an S-storm. Big mistake, I know. But I've made my mind now. Even started a project just before I got blocked, which I intend to resume after the appeal. Well anyway, at least I'll have time to find more sources. Torpilorul (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Iaaaasi or whatever

Guys, that account is from 2011. In 2011, I was thirteen. I hardly even knew of the Wiki's existence, and all I cared at that time about were GTA Vice City and Duel Masters. Don't believe me? I can give you my Facebook account, friend you so you can see my stats, and answer your messages. I was born in 1998, and as a Wiki editor I am not anything more than what you can see. Torpilorul (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peacemaker67 Socking lie/allegation debunked. Please spread the word about this. Torpilorul (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate issues that led to your block that are unrelated to the sockpuppetry investigation. I've seen your work previously and know you can do a great job; but you need to calm down and address the reasons behind your own block rather than trying to parade around this as a victory or something. Alcherin (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alcherin I will accept my faults, but I will not accept being smeared. I maintain that I've been treated unfairly: blocked a whole week before my thread was archived, accused of being someone else, smeared as a Holocaust denialist/apologist. Did I really deserve that, after days-worth of study hours I've spent researching Google Books? I doubt it. I will not address this in my unblock appeal, since I reckon I've got to focus solely on my wrong-doings, so I said it here. Torpilorul (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Royal Romanian Naval Aviation) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Royal Romanian Naval Aviation, Torpilorul!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Icewhiz Mojoworker XavierItzm 1990'sguy Listen you guys, the thread seems just about to close, as it's now the second subsection from the top. I just wanted to make sure I can get your names, in order to thank you for supporting me through this. I'd like to add that I'm by no means some account from 2011. I was 13 back then, had completely different interests, but, I grew up. Anyway I have no idea what to do to disprove this allegation other than share my Facebook account with whoever is suspicious, so they can see from my stats that I was born in 1998. If any of you needs or wishes any more clarifications about my views, feel free to e-mail me, as I see this really isn't the place to discuss them. I'll make my appeal in about a week, wish me luck. Torpilorul (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funplussmart Please refer to my above comments, and also to my actual work. Torpilorul (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

Nick-D You seem to be my most virulent critic. I'm not sure why, and I'm almost sure I'll be misidentified soon (given how this community operates) and maybe have my talk page will be blocked too, so I want to make sure I tell you this. I invited you to dialogue repeatedly, but all you've been doing is resort to allegations in an effort to push and ensure my perpetual censorship.

Number 1: We Romanians are not some basement-dwelling gang, but a nation of up to 30 million. A large chunk of us, millions, share views similar to mine. Maybe things like what I said are fringe at your place, but not here. According to a 2015 poll, on just over 1000 Romanian adults, almost half (44%) share my opinion on Ion Antonescu and acknowledge him as a national hero. And not to mention his position among the 100 Greatest Romanians, as chosen by the people in 2006. I haven't been mindful of cultural differences, and I apologize for that.

Number 2: I never meant to defend or apologize for the Holocaust. I've simply argued that we as Romanians, should be allowed to see events concerning our country and its leaders through our perspective, not the perspective of Jews or other non-Romanians. This has been a recurring question in Romanian academia in the past decade, with lengthy debates upon it: "Ion Antonescu - hero or war criminal?". My answer to that is pretty simple: Hero to Romanians, criminal to everyone else. I am sorry if my incomplete mastering of English led to me sending the wrong message.

Number 3: I am not Iaaasi. I do not know how to prove that, given he's a Romanian with apparently similar views or interests. But look: God is my witness as I swear on my life, that I'm not Iaaasi. I genuinely don't know what more you want from me. Share my Facebook account so everyone can see I was born in 1998 and thus was 13 in 2011? I had completely different interests back then.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Torpilorul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To my shame, I have never read any of the WPs when presented to me. After being blocked however, I took them one by one, and read them carefully. Thus I now fully understand the reasons for my block, and what I should do. I understand and accept that the Wikipedia is not a place for me to espouse my political views, nor create forum-like threads. I am thus willing to remove the section about Ion Antonescu from my user page, as there are clearly better venues to espouse my views on him. I also understand that the Wiki is not a place for me to right what I perceive to be great wrongs. I've done it a few times, once went on a binge edit with no sources at all. I apologize for that and I'll make sure it won't happen again. I will also make sure to avoid edit wars, and take the subject to the talk page if my edits are reverted. As for the edit summaries, I will use them properly from now on, instead of using them as means to espouse my own personal thoughts and opinions. I apologize for my insensitive comments at ANI and I regret if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. However, I do understand the doubt cast by my comments on me editing articles related to Romania in WW2. Thus, I am willing to accept a TBAN on such articles, even if self-imposed, as a condition for lifting my block. I am fully aware that in making this appeal I am committing myself to strictly respecting regulations I've thus far largely disregarded. But I am willing and capable to do the necessary changes in order to be allowed by the community back within its working ranks, because I truly wish to continue doing constructive work and help build this encyclopedia as well as I can, as I've been doing for one year.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Assuming you were unblocked with a topic ban regarding Romania in WW2, what would you contribute to? I just went through your latest article edits, and pretty much all of them seem to be covered by that topic. Huon (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is aplenty I can do. I can do Romania in WW1, and the immediate years prior. Plenty to be done there. I can do the political developments in interwar Romania, or even the formation of modern Romania, with details on Cuza's rule. I can also return to warships but for other countries. Cuba, for instance, had a cruiser in WW2, which has no article. All of these ofcourse, if the topic ban is temporary. If I am banned indefinitely from editing on Romania in WW2, then you might as well keep me fully blocked, because ultimately that's my end goal. I view the TBAN as a means of proving that I can edit neutrally, and be of real use to the community, so I can get back to what I care the most about. Torpilorul (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that an indefinite ban from Romania in WW2 does not mean permanent. It just means with no currently fixed end date, and you would be able to appeal it after a certain time, maybe six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of World War II Romanian air battles

Hello, Torpilorul. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of World War II Romanian air battles, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torpilorul, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]