User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 20

Albanian Air Force

Hello Buckshot, my beef with the edits of the IP is that they add numbers that i.e. far exceed what the Austrian Air Force has, or the Swiss... they numbers almost approach the the equipment numbers of the Italian Army! And edits like this [1] adding 300 to a howitzer Albania doesn't have in use any more make be believe this is an editor on a mission to increase the military power of Albania... at least on paper. Also he copied text 1:1 from a forum into the article once [2] (taken from here: [3]). Therefore I revert his edits as I can't see much value in them. noclador (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is a common problem with inventories; people insert fake numbers, usually bigger ones. WP:BITE is all very well, but there's a limit to how much good faith we should assume when editors are adding false information. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rifle corps (Soviet) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 22 June 1941, disbanded 14 October 1941; was used to reinforce the Kandalksha operational group)<ref>p.23, Perechen No.4 Headquarters of Corps, Soviet General Staff, Moscow, 1956</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

2nd Battalion, 121st Infantry

You have vandalized this page in the past and now redirected it. Stop editing this page. It is being maintained by current members of the Battalion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewritewing (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

== Soviet divisions ==

Hi Buckshot,

Thank you for contacting me about this navbox. I created it because I found that Soviet Union division articles of limited scope tended towards being orphans, so a navbox linking them together seemed like the most expedient solution. I can understand that fully fleshing out the navbox with the uncreated articles would expand it beyond feasibility. Since it seems unlikely that the bulk of those articles will be created in the near future, the navbox seems to provide good short-term functionality. As the other articles are created, the sections of the navbox can be split off into their own navboxes. The navbox that the Soviet Union divisions navbox replaced was Template:Soviet Army Divisions World War II, which was a problematic template because it had no main link, which is required by our template guidelines. I merged the List of Soviet Union divisions articles because they were divided unencyclopedically. I agree that sublists should be created in new articles, but arbitrary year spans is not the way to go. I would be glad for your further thoughts, both on the navboxes and the lists.

Neelix (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot,

I appreciate your thorough response to my comments. From your explanation of why we shouldn't use this navbox, it sounds like you are arguing against using navboxes in general on Wikipedia. Navboxes serve a very different purpose than categories; categories are for categorization, while navboxes are for navigation. While expert readers and editors know how to navigate their way between articles by way of categories, the casual readers for which Wikipedia was created do not. Navboxes also make navigation much easier, as all the related links can be viewed at a single glance. Navboxes also provide organization that categories cannot (and should not). Consider that 92nd Training Centre (Ukraine), for example, only appears in categories by that title, but the navbox indicates that it was once the 92nd Guards Rifle Division, and therefore one of the set included on the navbox. The functionality of the navbox cannot be replaced by categories.

I'm glad that we agree that there should be sublist articles for the main list articles. It might be more illustrative to explain the difference between encyclopedic and unencyclopedic divisions by way of example. An example of subarticles divided by encyclopedic difference would be List of Soviet Union divisions in the interwar period, List of Soviet Union divisions in World War II, and List of Soviet Union divisions in the Cold War; the divisions correspond to two main articles each (List of Soviet Union divisions and either Interwar period, World War II, or Cold War). An example of an unencyclopedic subarticle division, at an extreme, would be List of Soviet Union divisions from July 4, 1940 until September 17, 1954; one would not be able to find a significant number of sources that discussed Soviet Union divisions specifically during this time period as a distinct time period, and and this kind of subdivision can therefore be a kind of temporal gerrymandering.

I removed the source data explanation from the top of the 1989-91 divisions list because the article space is not an appropriate location for such information. It is about the article itself rather than about the subject of the article, and should therefore be on the talk page if anywhere.

I am glad to be able to have this discussion with you. I hope it will prove productive in improving the relevant articles and their organization.

Neelix (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to add a couple of comments. a - I agree with Buckshot06 that the NavBox will become at some point unusable as more division articles are added. Template:Infantry Divisions of the Wehrmacht may offer some ideas on how to organize the links. Note this NavBox does show links to articles not yet created -- a useful exercise to determine if a NavBox for the Soviet divisions of World War II will be too unwieldy. b - any NavBox should be tightly focused by historical period. The current box mixes divisions from various time periods while ignoring comparably-sized units because they were not designated as "divisions" (such as tank and mechanized corps). c - I think Neelix's comments about article titles have some merit. The periods at which organizations changed do not correspond exactly with the time periods he mentioned but they are perhaps close enough. d - any NavBox should be in collapsed mode by default. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To respond to your point Neelix (or the first example) - this is specifically why I and User:Ryan.opel went through and created all the redirects such as 92nd Guards Rifle Division which are all carefully categorised. I am not arguing against general use of navboxes; they have their uses. That may not include situations where there are 130 written of a potential 600 articles. Maybe the use of any navbox, in this particular situation, should be delayed. Now, at the present, the only rule-based argument you've raised for the inadequate navbox as it exists is the casual reader aim of this encyclopedia. Are you able to cite any particular rule or guideline for the use of navboxes in this sense?

I'm intrigued at your description of 'Interwar', 'World War II', 'Cold War', etc as encyclopedic dividers, and thus no doubt all others being un-encyclopedic. However you actually have not justified these descriptions by reference to any definition of encyclopedic. Would you kindly do so? In addition, would you please describe why 'Interwar' is appropriate in the Russian/Soviet context? For Russia, the Civil War started as the First World War was ending, and did not really conclude until the mid 1920s, and was succeeded by a wide variety of associated conflicts. In view of our strong objections to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, I don't think one can apply unthinkingly the Western dividers without careful thought and where necessary, appropriate adjustments to the Russian/Soviet context.

If you believe that the appropriate place for reasoned explanation about an single-source article's source is the talk page, I would (1) invite you to read WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY/WP:REFERENCES more carefully, and (2) invite you to explain why I should not start an RfC on the issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a NavBox covering all Soviet Union divisions would rapidly become unwieldy with the number of units on it. If NavBoxes were to be done they would need to be broken into smaller chunks. Additionally, if you look at my personnel page I have been working the creation of articles for the missing Soviet armies, divisions and major strategic operations. Some of these are painful rough translations from the Russian Wiki site and other, mainly the divisional pages I have a number of English language sources available. Ryan.opel (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is good to see more users getting involved in this discussion. We're talking about a lot of different things here.

1. Navboxes such as Template:Soviet Union divisions - Buckshot, you asked for me to identify a guideline that requires us to use navboxes in this case, but that isn't how guidelines generally work; normally, anything useful is encouraged on Wikipedia so long as it is not against the guidelines. I have already demonstrated why the navboxes are useful, and I don't see anything in the guidelines that suggests that we should not have navboxes to improve navigation between Soviet Union divisions. As for how the navboxes are to be formed, I would be glad for the current main navbox to consist solely of higher-level articles (such as Aviation Division, Cavalry division (Soviet Union), etc.) and then have those articles be the main links for more specific navboxes. I would also be glad to see List of Soviet Union divisions split up by time period and for those articles to become the main links for time-period-specific navboxes.
2. Splitting up List of Soviet Union divisions - Interwar period, World War II, and Cold War have already been accepted as valid time period divisions for the Soviet Union; the infobox on the Soviet Union article states that the Soviet Union existed in three historical eras, and then lists Interwar period, World War II, and Cold War as the three eras. Arbitrarily chosen year spans are unencyclopedic because of what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; dividing a subject into time periods by which that subject is not commonly divided in the relevant literature is original thought, and is therefore unencyclopedic.
3. Lead section self-referencing - Where in the guidelines you mention do you see a suggestion that self-referential paragraphical text should appear in article leads? This kind of text is regularly removed from list articles when they go through the featured list candidacy process.

I'm glad we're having this discussion; I hope that the relevant articles will improve as a result. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the other problems you'll have with this is unit numbering. I.e. the template for Infantry Division>Regular>42 connects to 42nd Motor Rifle Division, which descends from the WW2 111th RD and 24th GRD's. So where do you then add 42nd Rifle Division which had two formations during WW2 and was reformed again in 1955? If we do multiple NavBoxes I'd break them at Interwar 1917 to 1937(when the Red Army expanded and renumbered a bunch of division), World War II and immediate Post War 1938-1956 (Army reorg in 57) and Cold War 1957-199x (Fall of the Soviet Union and Break up of the Armed Forces).Ryan.opel (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created the missing relevant section for Motor Rifle Divisions in the template. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Neelix fails to see that the exact time period that Ryan.opel's just referred to, ending in 1957, was the end point for List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1957. If he had paid closer attention to the relevant literature (good recent survey articles by David Glantz in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 2010, for example), he would have picked up the Russian periodisation that draws a distinction between the foot infantry formations of, roughly, 1917-1957, and the Motor Rifle Divisions beyond that date. This is exactly the kind of 'time periods by which that subject is commonly divided in the relevant literature' that he advocates. Please stop attempting to impose absurdly general dividers on a subject which has the current attention of a number of reasonably expert Wikipedia editors, who have created the subarticles in full conformity with the 'relevant literature.'

In addition, we have to respect WP:SIZE. This is why List of Soviet Union divisions, in addition to being inaccurate (it doesn't cover the Internal Troops), ungrammatical ('List of Red Army/Soviet Army divisions' would better cover the contents) as it is currently configured is inappropriate. It's too big. I am going to remove the addition of the 1989-91 divisions (which again you will find in David Glantz among others as a bookend of how the Russians themselves periodise the evolution of the Soviet Army), ahead of reorientation of a more comprehensive list of ground combat & combat support divisions, properly prefaced by some introductory text which would properly lead into subarticles.

I don't really care where the discussion of sources goes in the article. I do intensely object to the idea however that a discussion of the current scholarly state of play on a subject should be removed, however. Should you wish to show me a guideline indicating where it goes, be my guest. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that we agree that the lists should be broken up into sublists. My argument is not that "Interwar", "World War II", and "Cold War" be used necessarily as the dividers; I was providing a relevant example of encyclopedic distinctions. The time periods you identify may well be common in the literature, but such periods are named when they are common in the literature. Thank you for observing the distinction between Soviet Union divisions and Red Army/Soviet Army divisions. Considering that the Red Army was renamed the Soviet Army in 1946, perhaps the following would be appropriate titles: List of Red Army divisions before the Great Purge, List of Red Army divisions after the Great Purge, and List of Soviet Army divisions. What do you think? As for the discussion of the sources, such a discussion should only appear in the body text of the article if the assessment of the situation and sources is itself sourced (ie. the assessment cannot be yours or mine, but needs to come from a published third party). Otherwise, such assessment should only appear on the talk page. Neelix (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As you may know, the change of title from Red Army to Soviet Army had no effect on division designations (and neither did the Great Purge, for that matter). There may be some dividing line necessary (possibly circa 1922) in the early interwar period, but from about 1930 the existing division trends remain unchanged until tank & mech corps became tank and mech divisions in late 1945. The rifle (infantry) divisions remained unchanged until 1957, though Mechanised Divisions were introduced from the early postwar period. What we'll do eventually is create a 'Soviet divisions' page grouping VV and Red/Soviet Army, a 'Soviet ground forces divisions' covering Red/Soviet Army only, the infantry page 1917-57 which may eventually as a result of further research be broken 1917-circa 1922, and 1922-1957, and the other divisions page covering everything else which may as a result of further research be broken out by separate division type. These all are affected by WP:SIZE because there's a massive amount of referencing and further material to be added throughout. Now if I may ask, please don't crudely merge and reorganise pages without further consultation with us; your previous page moves did not include rewriting the intros to make the appropriate to the merged contents, and this should be done when the pages are moved.

On discussion of sources, would you please contact me via the emailthisuser function? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 31st Brigade (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hythe (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) 08:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

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 reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

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) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tunisian National Army

Hello Buckshot. I see that you are adding material to the article dealing with the TNA. That's fine except that you have deleted the opening paragraph under "post-Independence" giving details of the new national army as it was created in 1956. This was derived from John Keegan's authoritative work "World Armies" and seems to me be a valid introduction. Any objection to it being restored? Buistr 01:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. See that you have beaten me to it. Looks good. I will just add the page number for the Keegan reference. You might be interested in the separate but parallel article Tunisian Land Army which covers the history of the TNA in much greater detail. Good to know that there is a reputable source for the listings of modern Tunisian military equipment. My 2012 complaint seems grumpy in retrospect but I wasn't aware that this sort of detail was a matter of published record. Cheers and thanks. Buistr (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the same guy did Tunisian Land Army, because some of it is exactly the stuff I've translated into English at the other page. I've moved the TLA article to Tunisian Army, citing COMMONNAME and WP:UE. It will need to be throughly cleaned up and referenced. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

181st Rifle Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Latvian and Kalach

10th (Irish) Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sarafand

List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lavia

Multi-National Division - Baghdad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Division

Tunisian Armed Forces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to M198

Tunisian Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Monastir

Volga Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kuibyshev

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Red Army vs. Soviet Union Army Formations

Hello Buckshot, was wondering how we should handle Russian Civil War Army-level formations. With the divisional units we've incorporated them into it's Soviet Army History. Do you think we should do the same with the Armies, or should we make these (Red Army) formations as compared to (Soviet Union) formations?Ryan.opel (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
Message added —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013; 20:22 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

152nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to 1st Armored Division and 3rd Infantry Division

Washington Army National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Centralia and Puyallup

137th Aviation Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Worthington

40th Infantry Division (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Berkeley

Afghan National Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Central Ammunition Depot

Nebraska Army National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kearny

Tunisian Armed Forces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to French Protectorate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

111th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Thanks for the addition to the article. Adding to it has been on my to-do list, but time has prevented me from adding to the unit history. I also wanted to add to the unit history from the French and Indian war, where the 42nd Regiment of Foot rescued the Associators from being eliminated, an event that is celebrated in the unit Open Mess. Soldiers from the Black Watch attended the Formal Mess in several occasions while I was with the unit. From a military perspective, the unit is noteworthy for its high losses in every campaign it ever participated in until Iraq, where losses were, thankfully, much lighter. Of note in the Iraq action, an IED attack claimed the lives of unit members, the attacker eventually being caught in Louisville, Kentucky. Again, thanks for the addition.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian Airborne Division

Thank you for correcting my edit, most appreciated! But as you take an interest in all things military, and have been quite active on Russian military articles, I may have a little problem you might be interested in and a few words from an administrator like yourself would be useful.

Yesterday I was making several edits to the Superpower article in an attempt to improve the article, address some of its issues and rid it of some apparent nationalistic chest beating. One issue that I noticed in particular was the undue weight (WP:RSUW) given to the EU and Russia in the articles leading paragraphs. This is an example below:

"Additionally, it is widely believed that the European Union and India may have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century. A few heads of states, politicians and news analysts have even suggested that Russia may have already reclaimed that status. According to various academics, the European Union has revived a style of European (a supranational entity), likening the union to an superpower of sorts. The term commonly used is Eurosphere."

Now I am sue you can see right-off what my issues with this are. For one, the suggestion that Russia and the EU are already superpowers is being forcibly pushed upon the reader! This is unacceptable, controversial and stinks of European/Russian nationalistic pov. Secondly it is written rather poorly and is painful to read. Thirdly (as I sated before) this is giving undue weight to the EU and Russia in the lead of an article whose topic is not that of potential superpowers, but that of defining the terminology, origins and characteristics of past and present Superpower/s.

To resolve the issue I deleted all mention of "potential superpowers" from the articles lead. I then expanded the lead to reflect the articles actual subject matter and used the "potential Superpowers" section at the bottom of the article to cover those nations regarded by academics as having the potential to achieve superpower status in the 21st century (re-written in a NPOV). I also made several other general edits to the rest of the article.

However, it appears I am now faced with being branded as "anti-Russian" in the articles talk page by an IP (unregistered user) who reverted my changes. I restored my revision as per WP:RSUW. I also have a strong suspicion that this IP is the same guy who has contested my edits in the past when trying to deal with Russian POV edits.

If you could voice your opinion on the articles talk page it would be most appreciated, thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Pennsylvania Army National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Homestead, War Department, New Cumberland, 28th Infantry Division, Adai and Washington Grays

28th Infantry Division (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Distinguished Service Cross, Henry Hoyt and Camp Hancock

List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Krasnogvardeysky District and Sverdlovsk District

Combat Aviation Brigade, 28th Infantry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Cumberland

Leningrad Narodnoe Opolcheniye Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Krasnogvardeysky District

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

57th Army

Put up a start for 57th Army (Soviet Union). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rally for Congolese Democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Province]], where the Ugandan army was defeated. Battles in Kisangani occurred in 1999 and 2000 (the so called '[[Six-Day War (2000)|Six-Day War]]'. Wamba retreated to [[Bunia]], where he faced

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pennsylvania Army National Guard may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the forward staging base) and Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of peacekeeping efforts ([[IFOR]] and SFOR]]) in the former Yugoslavia.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and 526 transport battalions. On June 22, 1941 the Division was part of the 5th Mechanised Corps]. Beginning June 12, 1941 the division was relocated to [[Izyaslav]], [[Khmelnytskyi Oblast]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pennsylvania Army National Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFOR (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) 09:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pennsylvania Army National Guard page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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) 13:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-yous Appreciated

Hi Buckshot06,

This is Wreck Smurfy. I wanted to say thanks for your thanks for the edits to 70th Army and 69th Rifle Division. As it happens I just received two more volumes of Red Army OoB material by Charles Sharp, so I'm in a position to crank out a few more articles in the coming months. Next up will be 354th Rifle Division, the running mate to 193rd Rifle Div. late in the War. I do Red Army re-enacting as a member of the 193rd, which is how I got started in all this.

Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy

Re: Red Army sacrifice. Coming from a country that has made reasonable efforts to recover its dead and missing, it is saddening to read this account. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC notice: Superpower article

I have opened an RfC at the articles talk page entitled Talk:Superpower#RFC: Superpower article revision, no POV. I would appreciate it if you could express your opinions there. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a reply there too. This is a lot of sources on the Superpowers that were removed Dec 28, 2013[[4]] on that article that has been under a lot of heat since Dec 28, 2013. I find it offensive to an editor to call Russian Nationalist for POV pushing (I'm not Russian but the comment made is racist). I stated in my earlier comments on a thread left on Acroterion[5]. The point is, there's a problem with the newer version, it removes too much sources and clearly is sending the message in the wrong direction on edits made by one editor[6] 23:14, 30 December 2013‎ by Antiochus the Great (talk | contribs)‎(37,169 bytes)(-4,976)‎(tidy-up, re structure and paragraphing). I will note, there was no prior talk on these edits, it was push with discussion. Too much at once, is clearly wrong for this article.

Comments here left on Acroterion:

You can start another dicussion but you appear to be in the mess of the edit war Antiochus the Great. Acroterion I sent Antiochus the Great on his talk page to appear of using another ip and engaged in an edit war using the ip 109.76.220.159 and Antiochus the Great of POV pushing but he quickly removes my comments[7]. I looked at the history of the Superpowers[8] and Superpowers talk[9] but the result has been under edit war since Dec 28[10] and the discussion has been minor on there part. If you start with an edit, then talk first but the action Antiochus the Great has taken has been too much and no real discussion for such. There are disagreements but that is not stoping edit push. I think there is no resolution if this continues like what I see here[11][12][13][14] as this matter was never discussed, it just appeared without any talk, this is a problem.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get Russian national POV? I'm born and live in America. I have read Wikipedia's policy on maintaining POV and appeared to be using as required.--103.1.153.206 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

--103.1.153.206 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

56th Army (Soviet Union)

Start article now in place. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryan.opel ; User:Wreck Smurfy

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

55th Infantry Brigade (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Camp Hancock

Exercise Summer Pulse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rota

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Brigadier General Frost

Hello Buckshot06. I got your message regarding Brigadier General Frost. I have been in the process of creating and modifying the article for him for a while now. It is, so far, my first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Obviously, I'm not doing something right. So far, I have simply followed, as closely as possible, the style and content of other U.S. Army Generals who have Wikipedia entries. I'll be glad to add/remove/modify according to the rules but I think I will need assistance from a more experience contributor regarding what exactly needs to be done. I see that User:Illegitimate Barrister has been doing a considerable amount of editing. Some of the edits I understand, others I don't. Again, I'd like a little help getting this one right because I have a couple more, similar, articles I'm working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3658:D39:A5EC:AD04:EE17:F7AA (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign the above.afrosty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

B G Frost

I have asked BG Frost for documentation regarding his activities in Iraq. I'm still unsure which specific items are in question. Can someone tell me exactly what part(s) is/are at risk? Maybe it's better to remove them and re-add them later when citations with reliable sources are available. What do you think? It may take some time for B G Frost provide the references due to his present workload and the fact he is moving to a new job as Deputy Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg and his wife is being promoted to Brigadier General in a couple months and she will take command of the US Army Cyber Command (I will want to submit an article about her also. . . .let's get this one right so when I submit hers, it's without errors). Much of the activities in Iraq (1st as a Cavalry Squadron Commander, & 2 yrs later as a Brigade Commander)are documented in the Hawaii news press articles in the Further Reading section at the bottom of the page. Is this considered reliable source verification ? Thanks in advance for your time and assistance. Afrosty (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RAF Habbaniya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• East: A History of the Royal Air Force in the Arabian Peninsula and Adjacent Territories 1945–1972 (London: Ministry of Defence: Air Historical Branch, RAF

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Philippine Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• combat-veteran-named-army-chief|title=Combat veteran named Army chief|work=The Philippine Star]|publisher=The Philippine Star}}</ref>
• Luzon Force]], the [[Visayan-Mindanao Force]] under Colonel W.F. Sharp in the southern islands (61st, 81st, and 101st Divisions plus three other regiments,<ref>Niehorster, http://niehorster.orbat.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philippine Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George M. Parker (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) 08:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

BG Frost update

Hello Buckshot06. Following your example (thank you), I have added a few references to the BG Frost article. I have also removed a few sentences that might be considered self-promoting. I have added a two or three new links to other Wikipedia articles. In the BG Frost article, there are several sentences regarding the Battle of Palm Grove. Everything that is said in the BG Frost article is also said it the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Palm Grove (which has no citation/reference warnings). Should I add a reference to the Wikipedia article or should just leave the BG Frost article as-is with just the link to the Battle article ? Is there anything else specific that I need to address ? What needs to be done to remove the warning at the top of the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrosty (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

354th Rifle Div.

Hello, Buckshot06. I put up the article on the 354th Rifle Division over the last two evenings, if you care to peruse. I'm planning to tackle the 140th Rifle Division next, if no-one else has dibs.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Vladimir Yakovlev (general) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Petty and Advisor

Structure of the Royal New Zealand Air Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hamilton

Whangarei Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Milson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

172nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to War Department

Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabinda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Armor question

Hi Buckshot. We haven't spoken for a while but I hope you're doing well. I had two questions to ask you, since your knowledge of the military is far better than mine. I was hoping you could tell me the name and purpose of this pylon found on the rear of this BMP-1 armored personnel carrier and the name and purpose of this triangle rail guard found on front of this turret of this T-72A MBT. Cheers,--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Isn't the "Pylon" actually a log, used to help get you out of sticky mud? The "V" would be a splash guard (protects the driver's hatch). bobrayner (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Bob has given you good answers to both your questions - thanks Bob. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Bob. I am actually surprised regarding the bit about the log - so how exactly is that used to extract the BMP from the mud?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A bit like a Sand ladder (Why is that still a red link?) - the log can be put on the top of a muddy hollow, so the tracks don't sink all the way down, and this helps stop the vehicle getting stuck. However, a big strong lever has a hundred other uses! (Disclaimer: I've done this on sand, not on mud). bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's often done with several logs, not one, right? Marshal B, take a look at Fascine, specifically the pictures of the Churchill AVRE on the right. Bob, in what circumstances have you done this on sand? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

4x4 sinking into soft sand. Deflating tyres can help (lower ground pressure) but sometimes you can't go low enough (without beadlocks), at which point it's time to put down something flat to spread the pressure, and that may also help keep the rest of the vehicle out of the sand. You can buy shiny aluminium sandladders, but planks are much cheaper :-)

Presumably it would be a lot harder to get a tracked vehicle stuck on soft sand, but rasputitsa is notoriously sticky..? bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. Much appreciated for the help Bob. While we're still on the subject of tanks, I had one other question: what exactly is that panel of multichromatic lights found right underneath the turret of the M1 Abrams tank?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kentucky Army National Guard may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[75th Troop Command]] (appears to draw its designation from the 75th Infantry Brigade of the World War I-era 38th Division
• (United States)|123rd Armored Regiment]], and the 1st Battalion, [[149th Infantry Regiment (United States|149th Infantry Regiment (United States]], and the 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery.<ref>David Isby and Charles Kamps Jr.,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Gen. Malcolm Frost - again

Hello Buckshot06. More warnings have appeared on Gen. Malcolm Frost's article. I have no idea what to do about them. (1) The first, "close connection", makes no sense to me. Why is that objectionable? Does Wikipedia have a rule about who can author an article? Should there be a comment by the author, in the article, indicating the authors relationship to the subject? (2) "tone". I will gladly modify or remove any offending statements. I cannot do that unless I know which statements do not meet Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" standards. The article has been modeled after numerous other Wikipedia military officer articles. I can find statements in other military officer articles that match the tone and intent of every sentence used in this article and have been permitted without warnings. Apparently I'm missing or misunderstanding something. (3) "citations/references". Without specific information about what needs referencing, I can't help. As you can see, I have added a 8 references since the last warning and does a very good job of providing verification for statements used. Again, this article appears, to me, to be cited satisfactorily when compared to other military officer articles. Can you get answers, specific answers, to these 3 items for me? Or, can you get someone to assist me editing the article? Should I consider removing the article and putting it in a workspace until it gets approval from everyone concerned ? (Even then, how do you overcome the "close connection" issue?) I need some good, solid, specific guidance here. Please help. Afrosty (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. - WP:COS.

Please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

The other questions you asked are covered in that, but they're kinda moot, because you almost certainly shouldn't be editing it. There's 6,822,574 other articles that need work; let others deal with this one, and all such problems would be avoided. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

88.104.19.233, buzz off!! I have independently determined that Brig. Gen. Malcolm Frost is notable, between WP:SOLDIER and other references. I'm a six-year experienced Wikipedian and administrator, with tens of thousands of edits and two featured articles to my name. I probably know the way the U.S. armed forces work just as well as you, and would probably beat you on a straight order-of-battle quiz. I know what this article should look like in the end - a smaller version of something like Dwight D. Eisenhower or H. Norman Schwarzkopf. I am very very unlikely to let Afrosty, who has repeatedly shown he's willing to work with me, stuff this one up so it reads like most of the canned-DOD officer bios. Go and reread WP:BITE, and leave this one alone - I know damn well what I'm doing!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Afrosty, for a start, if you're willing to learn about how WP works, and follow my direction, don't worry about (1). Regarding (2), the problem is that most U.S. officer bios are written in an Army tone of hyper-patriotism and hyper-positivism; in every command, every officer broke records or did something special and new. In addition, it's all from a U.S. view, rather than a more global one. So go and reread the two bios, Eisenhower and Schwarzkopf, I've mentioned, come back here, and write in here the differences you see in style between those and the Frost article at the moment. Then go and make some changes; we're writing history, not DOD-compliant text. (3) I've said this before, but will expand it. Because this has attracted some attention, reference every second sentence. Put a footnote after every second sentence, and tie it back to either WP:DEADTREE (apologies, I meant published books, not internet) or online sources. Any questions, just come back to me. Kind regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me to re-read BITE - it seems ironic, considering you began by telling me to buzz off. I'm tempted to place a warning here, for your personal attacks on me, but I doubt it would help. I'll just remind you here to please Comment on content, not on contributors.

As a "six-year experienced Wikipedian and administrator, with tens of thousands of edits and two featured articles", surely you know better than to put text like "details of what he did?", and "what were the dates of his posts at CArson?" within a live article [15].

Why are you recommending the user edits the article directly, in contradiction to the behavioural guidelines I stated?

And what do you mean about WP:DEADTREE - are you suggesting the subject requests deletion of their article? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

88.104.19.233, as you are probably aware, the number of people that view such an article day to day are in the low tens (or less). It simply doesn't matter if there are a few comments that help me mentor Afrosty. I am happy to let him edit the article directly because he has the specialist data and references beyond what we can find easily on the web. Thus he can add refs that substantiate the article and improve it. As I've said, I can then check his work and amend if necessary. The critical thing is that he is willing to amend his actions to get the article to a standard which is appropriate for wikipedia. Personally I do not understand why you are so aggressively trying to dissuade him when the process is under my overview. At the end of this, we'll have a good solid article, because I will make sure of it - or get it deleted if it isn't. Now, finally, yes I've made a mistake. DEADTREE isn't the link I thought it was - I meant published books or articles, not web news stories. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notification - as we seem unable to agree, I have asked for third-party input on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Malcolm_Frost. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Army National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 51st Infantry Division

Somali Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Department of Defense

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

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 reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Allied Forces Central Europe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Allied Forces Central Europe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just checking in

How's it going? I haven't seen you around for a while. I hope you're OK. You've done a lot of great work; I hope you're not away for long. bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"appeal on my talkpage or elsewhere"

Pretty sure you were mocking me with it. Anyway so I did.

I guess you reacted on my 'edit war ceasefire' lighthearted comment and got interested in what was it about just after we've finally made an agreement and understood each other. How silly.

Nothing there was 'disrupting'. This article would be in totally disrupted state, like it was as recently as in 2012, if not my work on it. You csn check it. The link was in this comment of mine.

And I'm assuming good faith now despite this obviously mocking message you left me. I probably shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.144.29 (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spetsnaz&oldid=508538628

Maybe you should revert there, before all my disruption. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw, lugnuthemvar left you a message on his talk page. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bumping for a response. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Valery Gerasimov may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• District]].<ref name="mod-bio"/> From 1993 to 1995 he was the commander of a motor rifle division]] in the [[Baltic Military District]] and then the North Western Group of Forces.<ref name="mod-bio"/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 11:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Shaba II and others

Hi user:Buckshot06 (talk), it's been awhile but I thought that you can help me with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Moroccan_Army#Battles_in_infobox

It's about the moroccan participation in Shaba II and other threads. Hope you can join us and help us improuve the talking.

Cheers from Tabrisius (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In theory, would it be illegal to give an Admin something like a Barnstar for Law Enforcement?

Purely theoretical questions: If an editor that has proved rather distressing to me in the past finally gets punished (oops, sorry, sanctions are not punishments, as per WP:I-forget-what) for misbehaving in some dispute in which I have no involvement, would it violate some Wikipedia principle if I were to offer something like a Barnstar for Law Enforcement (if such a thing exists) to the Admin who issued the sanction? And, if so, would I have to hypocritically pretend that I regarded the sanction as a 'regretable' necessity? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a pretty junior admin. Approach the lead coordinator of the Milhist project or User:Kirill Lokshin. They'll be able to give you much better answers. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I guess I'll just play safe and say no more than that the relevant part of the official grounds for awarding an Admin Barnstar says "just to show an administrator that you think they are doing good work in a particular area of "the job" and that their work is appreciated" :) Tlhslobus (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

29th Army (Soviet Union) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chita

4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Novosti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

List of russian military special forces

Under the federal law, the FSB is a military service just like the Armed Forces, the MVD, the FSO, the SVR, the FSKN and EMERCOM's civil defense, but its commissioned officers do not normally wear military uniform.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2001 was a long time ago. besides, we should include the units used in military ops.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

my proposal is simple. include the units used in military ops/campaigns.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

28th Rifle Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Targul Frumos

46th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 16th Army

Moscow Military District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mulino

Somali Armed Forces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Darood

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Busier ...

than a beaver at the moment after a move of my household. I'm unemployed and even so busier than I was when I had a full time job! Saw your thanks re: the French forces in Germany article. The French wiki has a nice article from which much can be translated, I'll need to get a 'net connection here and a bit more time. I'm (literally) in conflict with a weasel among other suburban adventures. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Structure of the Pakistan Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to 16th Infantry Division and 17th Infantry Division

List of military special forces units (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nogales

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

167th Motor Rifle Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 1st Guards Army

List of Soviet Army divisions 1989–91 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yekaterinovka

Rifle corps (Soviet) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Varnita

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Strategic Air Forces Command page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help) and a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

95th Rifle Division

Hey, Buckshot. Thanks for the second Order of the Red Banner; it was a slow weekend.

Tech question for you. I'd like to do a much better article on the 95th Rifle Division. Currently, searching 95th Rifle Division re-directs to 75th Guards Rifle Div., which has minimal content on the 1st and 2nd formation of the 95th, and nothing at all on the 3rd formation. Is it possible to restore 95th Rifle Division as a separate article? I would then link to 75th Guards at the end of the 2nd formation section. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy, Apr. 24/14

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Strategic Air Forces Command may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• This date marks the beginning of the operational duty of the [French [[Force de Frappe|''Force de Frappe'']] (Force of Chilled Coffee).<ref name="cfas_histo">{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
Message added —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2014; 14:43 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] division in the name of [[Marshal of the Soviet Union]] [[Rodion Malinovsky|R.A. Malinovsky]]" (10 гвардейская танковая Уральско-Львовская ордена Октябрьской революции Краснознаменная орденов

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strategic Air Forces Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach (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) 08:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

French air base moves

I have undone the three moves you made of articles about French air bases. "Air Base 126 Solenzara" is possibly a more accurate literal translation of the French name of the base, but it is not a name format that is normal in the English language. For this reason I have moved it back (along with two others you moved) to the "Solanzara Air Base" form. You would probably do well to review WP:COMMONNAME before you make any other moves of this sort - our articles are meant to be located under names that people would normally look for them, not under literal translations of a name in another language. BMK (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Care when making blocks

I have accepted an unblock request at User talk:Lihaas. I cannot see any justification whatever for the exceptional step of an immediate block for a single edit with which you disagree, without first explaining your disagreement, and being willing to discuss the issue. Even for unambiguous vandalism, such an immediate block for one edit is generally regarded as acceptable only for quite unusual and extreme kinds of vandalism. Looking further, I was surprised to see that several recent blocks that you have made have been for a small amount of debatable editing on articles which you had been editing. You need to be careful, to avoid giving the impression that you are using blocks to protect your own preferred versions of articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for poking my nose but James can you please take a look at this. I'm not an admin although but I think Lihaas has a history of blocks either for editwarring or similar. So, I personally think one can be blocked for sometime if he/she continues a behaviour for which he/she has earlier been blocked or warned. Now, it is my personal view and I might be wrong judging this matter. Please forgive if I have made a mistake. Thank you. Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

James, In unblocking User:Lihaas, you have just rewarded someone who lied twice in their edit summary about an edit on a contentious topic. Can you explain your thinking as to why you wish to assist people who lie about their edits? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: did you discuss this with Buckshot by email or something? If not, you've just violated the requirement that "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews (which is rather important to prevent admins passing judgement on one another...). Given that Lihaas has a history of this kind of problematic editing, and the claim in the edit summary which lead to the block that the material he or she was removing was unsourced is clearly false, this block does not strike me as having been a potential case of an unambiguous error. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I don't agree. I saw this as unambiguous error. I also don't see anywhere in the block log you link to any record of "a history of this kind of problematic editing". I also see evidence of other, more serious, problems with the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Well, you're wrong then and have made a basic mistake in the application of the blocking policy. I see no way that you can sensibly maintain that blocking an editor for making an edit to a contentious article which contained an obvious falsehood (removal of sourced material on the grounds that it was unsourced) was clearly a mistaken block. You have violated the relevant policy here (whose wording is very clear, and the principle of not overturning other admins' decisions without first discussing it with them except in unusual circumstances should be well known to all admins), and have made this worse by attempting to lecture Buckshot about a failure to adhere to this policy (no admin should ever lecture another admin: that's the job of WP:AN and ArbCom). Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D:It must be wonderful to be so confident of one's own superior position to be able to say "Well, you're wrong then", rather than "Well, my view is different from yours". However, you may like to reconsider whether, even when you are that certain of your position, expressing yourself that way is the most diplomatic and effective way of persuading others that you are right. I am interested to see that you think you are able to lecture me on what I should and should not say to another administrator. Isn't there something odd about your doing that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the position you have taken here (declaring Buckshot so obviously wrong that you summarily overturned his decision and then lectured him in an insulting tone), so if you don't think it's a good way to relate to other admins then you should reconsider your approach. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I am sincerely sorry if I used an "insulting tone". I put some considerable thought into how to express myself so as to try to come across as civil, and if I failed in the attempt then that is most unfortunate. Can you help me to avoid making similar mistakes again by telling me what about my tone came across as insulting? You may be right in thinking that it would have been better to have consulted Buckshot06 before accepting the unblock request, but re-reading my message above I honestly do not see what about what I wrote could be seen as "insulting". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing of the entire post was unfortunate IMO: you declared Buckshot to be wrong and gave them lots of free advice. I generally try to take a "hey, I think that you may have goofed" or "what do you think about this development"-type approach when discussing possible mistakes with other admins, and appreciate it when other admins take the same approach with me when they think that I might have messed up. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Strategic Missile Troops

Hello there! Several days ago I inserted a 2012 IISS citation to the article regarding the personnel strength of the Strategic Missile Troops. This wasn't a controversial edit as far as I am aware, because the IISS is a reliable source and the article never mentioned the manpower strength anyway. However since my edit, two IPs have challenged it by removing it. One claiming it was vandalism and the other left a very bizarre edit summary ("in out in history then moved information"). In order to "undo" my edit they both reverted the article to a 22 March 2014 revision of the article (as seen here and here). This is certainly strange behaviour and I bring it to your attention as I notice you regularly edit/patrol Russian military related article.

What do you think about the above? Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your talkpage is blank, so I'm answering here. I have reverted the edit, and thankyou for advising me. However, while I do not have my copy of 2012 to hand immediately, I've just checked 2011, 2013, and 2014: the reference to '80,000' is not for the RSVN, but for 'Strategic Deterrent Forces,' including the Russian Navy SSBN force and the Long Range Aviation. I'm quite happy to leave it there for now, and will clarify on the infobox. Please continue to advise me of this kind of thing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that, and thanks for clarifying the issue regarding the personnel being drawn from several services and not actually being RSVN specific personnel. As for the IPs that initially reverted the material, another has come along and reverted your change. At first I thought the IPs were reverting in good faith, but I now suspect that the persons behind the IPs are actually the same person - more than that, they are the same person who has been stalking and harassing my edits for the past few weeks. This person uses proxies to jump IPs and stalks my contributions list reverting any changes I make. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

BSSA

Buckshot06, I can put up a stub explaining what the BSSA is and the information it provides. Of more general information, such as its date of production, I am not sure. It is clearly gleaned from wartime data, but whether it was produced in the format we know during the war is unclear to me. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W._B._Wilson/sandbox/BSSA - Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Should the title of the article be "Combat composition of the Soviet Army" ? BSSA could be set up as a redirect to that page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Article moved and redirects created. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1920 Royal Navy Mission to Enzeli

Quote: "Just wanted to thank you for this fantastic article on a really little-known subject. Hope you'll consider writing more. Please don't hesitate to ask me for any advice/help you might wish." Thank you Buckshot, I am glad you found it as interesting as I do. I was prompted to write it as a counter to the mainly ficticious account of this same incident named Black Hole of Baku. I do intend to write more articles, time permitting. Thank you for your appreciation. Billwnsf (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Buckshot. With regards to the "Black Hole of Baku", I don't think there is any part of it that would add anything new to the "1920 Royal Navy Mission to Enzeli", as the little truth that it does contain has already been covered. I think the best thing to do would be to remove it completely, as a work that is 90% fiction should not be part of any encyclopaedia. Billwnsf (talk)@~

Hello Buckshot, I'm afraid I got hold of the wrong end the stick regarding Simon's comments about Original Research, but I understand now. Perhaps the solution would be for me to remove the parts for which there is no other published work to cite - which I am willing to do. My problem with this is that, even if I know a particular item is true having checked it with Fraser's Report, I will need to cite unreliable sources to keep it in. (These parts deal almost exclusively with their time spent in prison.) What are your feelings about this? Billwnsf (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As a frivilous aside, to verify something I wrote citing "The Mediterranean Fleet 1919-1929" would cost £105.00 to buy the book. Whereas, "Fraser's Report" from the National Archives costs only £7.00! Billwnsf (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Following on from your last message, I have edited the article to remove content I couldn't attribute to published sources, and provided alternative citations for other parts. Not so authoritive, but it is published. Have a look and see if it now meets Wiki reqirements. Billwnsf (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with merging articles

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_trade_zone#Free_economic_zone

There are three articles and at least one needs to be merged, but I am not very sure how these legal definitions work.

Thanks --Vitilsky (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Help me

How do I upload a CV to authenticate the Edward J. Erickson article? I have the CV from Mr Erickson, and I need to upload it in the approved fashion. Some sort of WP:OTRS ticket, I think, but how? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is his own CV written by him, I think OTRS would need an email from him to confirm his identity and to make the necessary copyright release. The place to start is probably Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, but I will leave this helpme in case someone can give more specific guidance.

A self-written CV, particularly if it has not been published, will not do much to "authenticate" the article - see WP:Verifiability, particularly the section WP:SELFPUB. It will certainly not count towards notability, which depends on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree. We have to be very careful about selfpublished sources, and CVs especially so; I don't want to cast doubt on this person's honesty, but CVs usually stretch the truth a little, carefully rephrase everything so that it looks good, omitting any bad bits &c. Agreed that it does nothing for notability, because lots of people have CVs saying that they did great things. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Part 2

Could I make use of an official document listing his military positions, rather than a CV? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, official documents appear to be fine for this.

If you are making a new article, please also see the unofficial SRV (Short, Realistic, Verifiable) essay — you have to be extra careful about fitting the subject into the world, i.e. the «Realistic» bit. It may need some thorough research into this topic: look for sources that are entirely unrelated by themselves, not just documents from the officials he worked for.

--Gryllida (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with merger or deletion

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_casualties_during_World_War_I#Deletion

There are two articles which need to be merged. There needs to be a balanced point of view and an appropiate title, for they represent two different POV's. Thanks for your help on the other article, as I am eager to find these. --Vitilsky (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1st Rifle Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Directive (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) 08:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

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) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of military special forces units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distrito Federal (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) 08:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unified Combatant Command may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Admiral (United States)|admiral]]. CCDRs exercise combatant command (COCOM),<ref>Joint Pub 1-02)</ref> a specific type of nontransferable command authority over assigned forces, regardless of
• A sixth geographical unified command, [[United States Africa Command]] (USAFRICOM]], was approved and established in 2007 for Africa. It operated under U.S. European Command during

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

4th Armoured Division (France) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mezieres and Nancy

List of U.S. Department of Defense code names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Treaty of Paris and Operation Desert

1 Army Corps (France) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nancy

Air Force Strategic Command (Pakistan) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nuclear Command Authority

Armed Forces of Belarus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Chumakov

Unified Combatant Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pacific Command

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

At 08:10, 20 January 2014 you protected the page. Please can you do so again as the dispute rumbles on and has degenerated into a tennis match or reverts. -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And you can only blame yourself for that.

You failed to follow the advice Buckshot06 gave when he protected the page (Would you consider drafting yourself something along the lines of 'Beevor xxx etc says.. [end paragraph] But recent Russian scholarship [mention pub dates] says ..' Would ask you in the interests of fairness to avoid 'asserts', 'claims' 'argues' etc, and simply stick to 'says' on both sides. Those are just my drafting ideas - feel free to use anything of value.[16])

You just refuse to attribute a disputed statement, violating WP:ASF, even when the RfC result stated to do so.[17]

On top of that you declined dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the sentence you added ("There is a widespread Western scholarly consensus that the term 'mass rape' is appropriate."[18]) can stay, although according to WP:RS/AC a source directly stating this is required.
The only thing I would add is a statement like "while Russian historians dispute this assertion." -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe a better statement would be: "while the general consensus among Russian historians is that such crimes were not widespread."

What do you think? -YMB29 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Marjata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stars and Stripes

Somali Armed Forces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marka

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Niemti i / TRIGGERWARNING

As you are completely uninvolved on this page. I would like to address that Niemti i / Triggerwarning has learned nothing from 42 days block. He keeps edit warring on Antifeminism, even after knowing that his change is not ultimately going to be accepted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

[19] removing maintenance tags too, without improving anything. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ministry of Defence (New Zealand) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chief of Defence Force

Support Command (New Zealand) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Linton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military academies in Russia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/nii_vvs/nii.htm History of GLITs (NII VVS)Testpilot Russia (Russian]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Soviet Air Forces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• link to the document] in [[PDF]] format, Appendix.</ref> That total included 24 Air Forces schools (nine Higher Aviation Schools of Pilots, including the Borisoglebsk Higher Military Aviation School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Somali Armed Forces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Force]].<ref name="Sarmrnks">{{cite web|title=Somalia: A Country Study - Army Ranks and Insignia]|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20121004045134/http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/
• Ethiopian-trained forces, often acting in concert with ENDF ([[Ethiopian National Defense Force]]]) forces or under the command of ENDF officers.'<ref name=HRWDec08Som>[http://www.hrw.org/node/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strategic Air Forces Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASMP (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) 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Navy Command Headquarters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Kingdom Amphibious Forces, who is dual hatted as [[Commandant General Royal Marines]]), COMUKTG (Commander UK Task Group, Commander Amphibious Task Group (COMATG), and the Commander [[3 Commando

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Par Avion Electronique --

Email for you. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for a distraction in the weeks to come, you might look at some material by a person you know. Renaissance and Fulda Gap involved some research. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff!! 11 1/2 out of 10!! I'll be taking a very close look at 'Renaissance' at some point; the French transition at the end of the war is fascinating. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, great stuff, downloaded and will be reading over the weekend.Ryan.opel (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Global strategic petroleum reserves

added a link pointing to John Blackburn

Military Air Transport Command

added a link pointing to Apt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Arnhem

I have had all my edits reverted by an editor. He can do this. He also insulted me, making it personal. It seems bullying is OK on Wikipedia, and if you point this out, then others come in to help the bully. People are being shut up all the time here. If that is the way Wikipedia has evolved, where bullies rule, then it makes life difficult for the rest of us. Wallie (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Keesings access

Hey Buckshot06, I have approved your access to Wikipedia:Keesings but need you to follow the instructions in the email I sent a week ago. Sadads (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second United States Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Army. 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) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Force Recon response

I believe that the US Marine Corp's Force Reconnaissance does fulfill a non-conventional role in the sense that they do not focus on conventional operations, but I do not believe that they fulfill the Special Operations criteria. For instance, the US Army's Long Range Reconnaissance detachments/companies fulfill a very similar role; providing limited ranged surveillance for a brigade or division. They attend Ranger school, are jump qualified and must attend the Surveillance & Reconnaissance Course at Fort Benning, but they are not considered an SOF. I guess the gist of my argument would be that non-convention/elite does not necessarily equal SOF. Since the US Special Operations Command and Marine Special Operations Command have not seen it fit to include Force Recon in their SOF category, I think that lends credence to the opinion.

Best regards, ForwardObserver85 (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

=After reviewing the definitions and comparing Force Recon with some of the equivelant forces on the international list, in addition to their historic activities alongside current special operations forces (namely the Rangers and SEALs in Vietnam), I agree that they do in fact fulfill the SOF criteria. I'll undo my edit. Best regards, ForwardObserver85 (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Rangers

Hey, no sweat on the Force Recon. Regarding the Rangers, while they were capable of being employed on the company-battalion level in the event of airfield seizures and cordoning operations, I believe they were also created to be used at the platoon level. For instance, part of their new mission set capability included a carry-over from their Vietnam days in which squad-level units would conduct long range reconnaissance and ambush patrols. Additionally, in his memoirs on the creation of Delta, Colonel Charles Beckwith mentioned that while campaigning for the creation of that unit he was met by resistance from the Ranger battalions and their supporters who felt that the Rangers were already tasked with the sort of counter-terror operations he was envisioning for Delta. When he finally got approval for the unit, Colonel Beckwith also wanted to be able to recruit from the Rangers especially. This would imply to me that they were training on some level (although not to the level of the various commonwealth SAS units) in small unit CQB and hostage rescue operations. The reason for this, I believe, was because aside from long range patrols and prisoner rescue operations, the US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) at the time were almost solely focused on Unconventional Warfare (aka training & leading locals to fight). As a result, the Rangers picked up most of the direct action-type of operations, even if they weren't actually the best ones suited for them. I look forward to hearing any counter-points or issues you might have, but it might be a few hours before my reply as I'm calling it a night. Best regards, ForwardObserver85 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick addition. I don't know if you read many books on the subject, but if you do I would highly recommend one by Leo Jenkins called "Lest We Forget." It's a book written by a former medic in one of the Ranger battalions that detail's his experience from 2002-2007 if I recall correctly. What was interesting about it, and a revelation to me, was how it detailed operations that I formerly didn't know they undertook. For instance, during his deployments to Afghanistan (and possibly Iraq), they spent the majority of their time doing nightly independent smash & grab raids at the platoon level via blackhawk insertions. Previously I had been under the impression that they operated as you suggested, in a cordon or blocking-force (like they did in Mogadishu and on numerous occasions for CAG & DevGru), but that book detailed instead their more "special operations" side, IMO. I'll be looking for any books written about the battalions in the late-70's-mid-80's as I've been interested in finding out more about them during that period as well. This also, however, led me to questions about the Royal Marine Commandos. In two books (one written about the SBS & the other the SEALs), the authors mentioned the use of RMC's as support forces for helicopter-borne assaults on oil platforms. This, to me, would suggest a "special operations" sort of role, but throughout the majority of the war in Afghanistan they've been employed more along the lines of the specialized infantry, or sometimes even typical ground-holding forces, whereas the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment formed & fulfilled the duties of the newly created Special Forces Support Group. I'm not sure if that was a result of their airborne qualifications or from the success witnessed in the joint operation between them & the SAS in Sierra Leone. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm not sure how to view someone else's edit list. Any instructions? There is a high degree of fanboy-activity on the SOF/SF pages which is one of the reasons I try to insert as many sources as possible. And by all means, FO85 is fine. I was Army by the way, although I'm currently a civilian now while finishing my degree in history.ForwardObserver85 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks for the info. Surprisingly no in regards to the Sandbox. Well, I've been there plenty of times, just not to the two where combat was taking place. The first few times were to the Persian Gulf, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, then the last we were supposed to deploy to Afghanistan but instead were sent to Kuwait as a reaction force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 72nd Special Forces Battalion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the Yola Brigade to avoid further killings, in the midst of the events.<ref>Human Rights Watch, [Military Revenge in Benue: A Population Under Attack, April 2002, Vol 14 (2) A.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

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 reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputes over content

Hi - On 27 June 2014 ago you raised with me your concerns over POV pushing in the articles on Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. It is a great shame that the legitimate discussion you started at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard got closed down because it was about "content".

I have come across a situation with some similarities concerning the article on Deloitte. An IP has sanitised the article removing a huge amount of material about the development of the business, structure, branding, disputes etc. I have asked the IP to revert to the original version three times but without success. Again this is a dispute about "content" so it is unlikely that we will be able to get this resolved easily. It seems to me that what is needed is a panel of very experienced editors who are prepared resolve these situations in accordance with best wikipedia practice and then protect the relevant sites from further disruption. What do you think? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For the barnstar. Unfortunately unbiased information about the PAVN divisions is hard to find... Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment

added a link pointing to 5th Infantry Brigade

French Army

added a link pointing to Service

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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 reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak 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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Saw your note.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress RfC/U

The problem that caused it not to be listed is now fixed. However, as I've said at the RfC, you have not specified any acceptable desired outcomes. The RfC guidance specifically says that an RfC/U cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures". In my statement I've listed some examples of desired outcomes. I should have pinged you at WP:AN but I was tired and pinged the certifiers instead. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somaliweyn10 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Cite book" redirect

In 2012 you participated in a discussion about various "cite x" template redirects (e.g. "Cite journal", "Cite book", etc) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Cite journal. The redirect "Cite book" was nominated for deletion yesterday (31 August 2014) and your input into the discussion would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Cite book. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Buckshot06. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress

Hello, just FYI, I've closed the RfC/U you filed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

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: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anatoly Kvashnin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page General Staff Academy. 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) 09:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Submarine squadron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>http://www.naval-review.com/issues/1960s/1964-4.pdf The Naval Review, Issue 4, 1964, p.450]</ref> Captain C.H. Hammer was last Captain S.M. 5. [[HMS Ausonia]], the division depot ship, set

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Royal Navy Submarine Service

added links pointing to Blyth and Siege of Malta

Arthur Hezlet

added a link pointing to Bertram Taylor

Near East Air Force (Royal Air Force)

added a link pointing to Westland Whirlwind

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South African Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wonderboom. 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) 10:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

SA Army Units

• Hi user:Buckshot01. Thanks for your attempted edit of the template 'SA Army Units. While it didn't work, it was a good idea and I have done it. Thanks again. BoonDock (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South African Army Artillery Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citizen Force. 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) 10:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Natal Command

added a link pointing to Ladysmith

South African Army

added a link pointing to Kimberley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

South African Air Force

added links pointing to Citizen Force and Silvermine

10 Squadron SAAF

added a link pointing to Savoia

1st Division (Iraq)

added a link pointing to Khalidiya

Military district

added a link pointing to North West District

Southern Air Command SAAF

added a link pointing to Silvermine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Contact

Please contact me off-wiki. You have my details from the external websites. Thanks BoonDock (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Eastern Command (United Kingdom)

added a link pointing to Territorial Army

South African Army Artillery Formation

added a link pointing to Springs

Umvoti Mounted Rifles

added a link pointing to Union Defence Force

Western Province Command

added a link pointing to Wynberg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Task Force 1-41

Hi Buckshot, I hope that you had a nice Christmas, and are enjoying a break. If you have time, could you look in on the Task Force 1-41 article? (which is currently up for deletion) and comment on whether you think that it's likely to be notable. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into this Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bardia

• Hi Buckshot, there is precious little about the South African involvement at Bardia on WP. I found [this resource] which I thought was pretty authoriative. Something I would like to see rectified. Thought maybe you could help? BoonDock (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit of 101 Air Supply Unit SAOSC

Hello! I've begun a copy edit of this article but I would appreciate your clarifications. For example the sentence: This is one of the longest records for an OC of a unit to hold such a position within the SADF. Dose this mean it was a record for the same officer to fill one, single command? Cheers! Shir-El too 20:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Will do my best to "keep a light hand", but some things need elucidating [don't want to use 'clarify' again :) ]; part of the text was obviously translated from Afrikaans, so could we find the original author or another Afrikaans speaker to help out? Cheers! Shir-El too 20:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Many Thanks! Season's Greetings, too! Shir-El too 20:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

AHQ Malta

added a link pointing to Ventura

No. 205 Group RAF

added a link pointing to Heliopolis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military of Algeria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• There are six military regions (see [[People's National Army (Algeria)#Military regions]]. The 6th Military Region was created in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

John Geoffrey Bruce

I recently created John Geoffrey Bruce (because of his Everest achievements) and it is about to go on the main page in DYK. I couldn't find much about his Indian Army military career so that is being dealt with very skimpily. I see you included him in a list at 17th Indian Infantry Brigade. Is there any more that can be said? Any help would be welcome. Thincat (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Far East Expeditionary Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Far East Air Force. 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) 08:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Task Force 1-41

Why would you move this article when there is quite a bit of info pertaining to Task Force Iron?Don Brunett (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett