User talk:Peacemaker67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please be civil).


photograph of the editor as a young man
Informal portrait of the editor as an young man


Happy New Year, belatedly[edit]

Sorry for the belated message. I don't think we've communicated since before 1 January so... Anyway, pleasantries aside and long story short, could you weigh in on the conversation at the talk page here, and on changes made to the article in question. Should the article be renamed, should the non-qualifying entries be removed from the article in question, or should I revert my changes?──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If we don't rename the page then the non-qualifiers should be removed I guess, but I wouldn't feel comfortable without some consensus or expressed agreement. Aside from two newbie editors who have only weighed in on my own edits, no seasoned editors have expressed themselves, as of yet, anyway. As you are active in monitoring and making corrections to pages related to this particular field, I would appreciate your input. (What time is it in New South Wales, South Australia, I wonder? You may be asleep. It's noon here in NYC). Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Navy of the Independent State of Croatia[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Navy of the Independent State of Croatia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Images on Bezen Perrot[edit]

I have taken up the GA review of Bezen Perrot. I think that the images are appropriately licensed. Would have a look? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look, the licensing on both needs work, the magazine seems to be copyrighted until 2053 (70 years pma), but the editor could probably justify a non-free rationale for the photograph. I've left a detailed response there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Navy of the Independent State of Croatia[edit]

The article Navy of the Independent State of Croatia you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Navy of the Independent State of Croatia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waterloo Bay massacre[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Waterloo Bay massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waterloo Bay massacre[edit]

The article Waterloo Bay massacre you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Waterloo Bay massacre 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yugoslav torpedo boat T6[edit]

The article Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kragujevac massacre[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kragujevac massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski[edit]

The article 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:32nd Infantry Division Triglavski for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Serbian historiography article[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67

In recent times i edited and added much content to a article named Serbian historiography. I based the content on wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources. I based the layout of the article on the Historiography of Albania article which Antidiskriminator had mainly edited and structured. I thought that as that was stable and no one had brought up issues with it over the years, then replicating that layout for the Serbian historiography page would be apt. As such after editing and so on, I nominated the article for GA consideration. In the talk there were other views by editors about possible deficiencies though explained in a vague manner that may hamper it becoming a GA article. Considering your vast expertise of engaging with Balkan related articles i would value much your input/advice on the article and what needs to be done to get it up to scratch (i.e: go to uni and get more sources if recommended and needed, etc). Best regards. Resnjari (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Resnjari. Great work so far, I must say. It is a very difficult subject to navigate, and quite fraught with obstacles. You are very kind with your mention of my engagement with Balkan articles, but I have to say that I do not have an academic knowledge of Serbian historiography, beyond a passing knowledge from what is mentioned in books by Western academics like Sabrina Ramet and those that have collaborated with her, like Dubravka Stojanović. I would strongly suggest that, if the reliable sources talk about four stages of the development of Serbian historiography, you organise the article using those four stages rather than the 26 themes. It makes sense to have the article reflect the various stages of its development as outlined in the literature, and the material you have called themes could be divided (and no doubt subdivided) between those four stages, to make the article better reflect how academics have explained it. Good luck with it, I've watchlisted it to see how you progress, and would be interested in providing some feedback once you are ready for someone to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Bear in mind that you are abusing the RfC as a tool for a discussion. You are counting on votes not on the facts.--178.221.137.49 (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm engaging with the community to achieve a consensus on Cohen, not edit warring in an attempt to get my way. Good luck with your strategy... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Further, stop abusing warning like the one: ARBMAC warning. Academic appraisals of someone's work cannot be managed/validated by some Wikipedia commitees. --178.221.137.49 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Just making sure that you, as a new editor, understand what discretionary sanctions are. Have a better one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)