User talk:Deathlibrarian/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution 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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkish Free Syrian Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SDF. 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) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

TFSA ?

Hi, I concur that TFSA is really referenced, however it's not referenced as in the abbreviation, TFSA. This abbreviation only appears in Reddit (not an academic source). Kavas (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

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 and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line 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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Himmelstürmer Flightpack

G'day, just reviewed Himmelstürmer Flightpack for WP MilHist, and must admit that to me seems closer to fiction than fact; the sources provided don't seem strong too. So I asked for additional reviewers to look st it. Can you please share in Wikisourde copies of the German language sources cited? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just responding to your query about the above. This is an interesting article. Initially I put this up, and then it was raised as a hoax. I wasn't sure if in fact it was or not. In the meantime, the AFD was removed by someone else. Doing a bit of research, there seems to be some evidence to it, and some references to the concept in German language books (which I can't read). As far as I gather, all the references are real published items (though they may not be in google, but I gather a more concerted effort in Library cats would bring them up). Would be good to have someone who can read German look at the German language references and see what they say. Either way they'll find more interested stuff about it, or find it's never actually existed and it can come off, so good to have it reviewed, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, if you can upload copies of the German language sources we can work out translating them. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a while, and to be honest, I don't remember where I got all the sources from (though I believe them all to be legit references). I don't have electronic copies of them to upload, and I'm pretty sure there isn't any full text of them online. I agree, some of the English language stuff is just blogs. I suggest we just delete the article if enough people agree - leave it up to some expert with more knowledge of the area to re-write it at some later point, I'm not particularly attached to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, let's leave the decision to other editors with more knowledge and/or access to verifiable sources. I'll leave the article as is for now. Regards, DPdH (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits on Articles for deletion/Donald Trump revelation

Is there a reason you completely rewrote my comment and removed someone else? [1] PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

PackMecEng Did I? sorry about that, honest mistake. I'll pop back in and fix it. Apologies, too quick flicking between screens. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I figured it was something along those lines. No worries, have a great day! PackMecEng (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No probs, I've rolled back to your edit, then re-added the comment. Thanks for the heads up, you have a good one too. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata?

Are you interested in Wikidata? We need expertise on armour and military uniforms in Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion. From your User page, you seem to be interested in those topics ... if not your cup of tea, no worries! - PKM (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PKM - I would be interested... armour and military uniforms are a bit of specialty of mine. Any more info? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you know about Wikidata - but here's the work list of armour and helmets. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Fashion/To_Do/Armor

Anythng you could do to improve these - better descriptions, translations, images - would be great. We need to find a good reference source for info about these - I have a dictionary of arms & armour but it's been sitting on the shelf for 40 years and I don't know if it's a quality source or not. My expertise is clothes, not armour. The clothing list has a lot of military uniforms as well, and I'm not much help with those.

The project pages are here d:Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion - take a look and see if you'd like to come play. - PKM (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nauru national soccer team (2nd nomination)

I saw your (apparently deciding vote) that should delete until reliable sources found. As you are the only one who seemed to have a chance to review, what was your thoughts about the one I'd added in the previous edit from the FIFA website? Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nfitz - I was going off the other references, which indicated that is *wasn't* the national team. I missed the Fifa reference - however I did a search for it - but couldn't see it. Do you still have the link, as the page is deleted now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It was in my edit to the AFD discussion, the last one before yours. Here is the link - and here's a bonus link of it in English. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

- Sorry, Nfitz I looked through that FIFA magazine link, and couldn't seen any reference to Nauru. I did read the article on the solomon Islands, couldn't see it in there. In any case, the page has been deleted now, so unfortunately we have missed the boat. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In English on Page 28, in the boxed section. Last sentence. Deletion can be overcome. Though another good reference would help - to tell the truth, I didn't look too far after I found this one, as I thought it would simply settle it. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, yep, probably needs more references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines 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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf) Sd.Kfz.121/122

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf) Sd.Kfz.121/122. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 15 cm sIG 33 auf Fahrgestell Panzerkampfwagen II (Sf). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Loopy30 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Loopy30 Ah, so it does! thanks for that, I didn't see the other article, the title is tricky! I won't contest it, clearly a duplication. Cheers for the heads up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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 looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hakodate Coffee

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hakodate Coffee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the single word "released" there's still nothing in the article to indicate it's about a film rather than a theatre play. You only mention film on the talk page. None of the sources used meet the level of reliable sources, they're all self-published or user-generated. The article, as it stands, is not ready for publication. I've moved it to draftspace so that you can work on it unmolested. It's now at Draft:Hakodate Coffee. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I note that you've added a source from a film festival's website. The fact that the film was presented or competed in a major film festival would go a long way to establishing its notability. Could you expand on this? Does the festival have an article? Regards, Cabayi (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi thereCabayi yes, it was featured at the Osaka Asian Film Festival in 2016 - I've put a link on the page - here's the entry in the programme - http://www.oaff.jp/2016/en/program/i02.html Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Hirugao

Hi, I'm PamD. Deathlibrarian, thanks for creating Hirugao!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide references in reliable independent sources, and write in sentences. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

PamD 12:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hirugao

Hello, Deathlibrarian. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Hirugao, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

PamD 12:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Dreams for Sale (film) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dreams for Sale (film), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 13:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battle of Agincourt into Military Victories Against the Odds. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kamihate Store

Hi, I'm Domdeparis. Deathlibrarian, thanks for creating Kamihate Store!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. this article needs more reviews to pass WP:NFILM

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Domdeparis (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism

I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography 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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seven Weeks (Film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Seven Weeks (Film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. BIK89 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi Deathlibrarian, Here is a Bubble tea for you! Live long and prosper, Shatner2011 Shatner2011 (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

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 and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive 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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace controversies

Hi- Thanks Deathlibrarian. I see I have been accused of being a sock puppet. Since I am not no worries but thanks for the words of support. I am currently reading a pile of about 10 books on WW2 tank warfare- some recommended to me by a friend at Oxford University Press. When I am finnished I'm going to start putting suggestions on the Panzer Ace Talk page and then start editing. The whole "in popular culture" paragraphs which are inserted in many articles are Editorials for sure. Thanks again- Jeff TMakumbe (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Panzer ace links

Hi, I've just reverted a large number of changes you'd made to the 'unit' column of the table in this article where you'd linked individual words in the unit's name, and not to the unit. Virtually all of these units should meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and many already have articles, so this isn't helpful to readers. Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok, I assumed that most of the units wouldn't have had links? so at least linked the words. Thanks for the heads up Nick-D, I will endeavour to link to the actual unit pages. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks are also recommended in the case that there currently isn't an article on a unit. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, roger that, thanks Nick_D. I have tried to find some of the units, but it looks like there are in fact not specific articles for all of them (or at least not at that specific unit level), so red links may have to suffice.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

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 and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution 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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Hey DL, I was wondering if you would be up for running for adminship. I'd be more than happy to nominate you, and I know that you would make a great admin. I can't guarantee you'll pass, but I know you'd at least come very close. I think having you as an admin would make all of our lives on Wikipedia, as well as Wikipedia itself, much better and I know that even if I wasn't offering to nominate you, I would support in a heartbeat. Please respond to this on my talk page (Click the M in my signature.) Thanks, SrMeI 22:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood, nominating now. DL, Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how to do this, so you create the RfA page, and I'll co nom. Thanks, SrMeI 01:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Oh, cool, will do! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've temporarily removed the transclusion, as you need to fix the format first - if you transclude while it is formatted improperly, people will oppose you just for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Boing! said Zebedee - working on it now! And great Username, I was just showing my daughter The magic roundabout 3 days, specifically for Zebedee and dougal! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Hehe, your daughter is clearly going to be well educated! If you want me to check over the RFA before you transclude it, just let me know - as well as the header part, I also noticed links were going to User:Deathlibrarian 2 etc, so there's been some problem in setting it up as a second one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Boing! said Zebedee Showed her that, and the Wombles. She thought they were weird (they are, but that's not the point! :-) ). Would be awesome if you could check over the Rfa, before I transclude it. Pretty sure the text is good, and can't see any User:Deathlibrarian 2 references, but I can't work out the time out functionality in the header!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Deathlibrarian_2 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Don't forget the Clangers! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
        • (I think I worked it out - I just have to remove the code around subst: after I transclude. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
          • I'll take a look, but the warnings below about accepting a nomination from a new editor are worth listening to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • On a somewhat unrelated note, it's probably going to come across as strange that you've accepted a nomination from a user that has been registered for only two days. – Uanfala 13:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Deathlibrarian, I would encourage you not to move forward with this RfA at this time. First, the nomination is from someone who has less than 50 edits and just opened an account 2 days ago. Self nominations usually do not go well at RfA. A nomination from someone with so little experience is likely to go even worse, plus the reality that SrMeI may be regarded as a sockpuppet (SrMeI, I'm not suggesting you are, but there is evidence that might indicate that), and their nomination is factually in error (200 edits per year?). I mean no disrespect to SrMeI. Since your focus is in AfD, people will be heavily scrutinizing your record at AfD. Unfortunate as it is, people will look at percentage correct found at your AfD stats. 74.2% isn't bad, but it's not great either, and looking at the last 30, the track record is slightly worse than that. I would not encourage you to pick and choose what AfDs you vote on, so as to increase your percent. That's the wrong direction to take. But, do take time to consider more carefully the situation at the respective AfDs you take an interest in. That's where the principles in policy and guideline really take hold. Yesterday, you voted on 8 different AfDs in the span of 11 minutes. People may see this and feel you are not giving due diligence in reviewing these articles carefully. I haven't conducted a full review of your editing history, but these are the things that leap out to me. I would encourage you to wait a bit, and find an experienced nominator. They would be able to walk you through this. Your poodle is cute :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks Uanfala and Hammersoft, on Hammersofts advice I won't move ahead. To be honest, I didn't look at SrMeI's account, so didn't know he was a new user (He's definitely not my sockpuppet, and I don't know him). Thanks for the tips Hammersoft, I'll look at that and adjust the way I do AFD. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, DL, not looking at your nominator probably would have generated oposes also- indeed, it was going to be my second question  :) — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving pings, sorry) 13:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi... thanks for the heads up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries! I won't tell you the first question :p ;) Best of luck though next time! Have a look at WP:RRN for admins and experienced users who are willing to give you an MOT and later possibly nominate. take care, — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving pings, sorry) 13:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Deathlibrarian! I will go ahead and remove the nomination page as you have indicated that you are not planning to move ahead. Let me know if you want a copy of the page so I can e-mail them to you. Cheers! Alex Shih^Talk 14:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex Shih - yes please remove the page - I;ve got a copy in my sandbox, so will relocate that, so no need for the email, but thanks for the offer. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw this just as I was on my way out this afternoon, did a quick skim of the nomination (but nothing else), and thought "yeah, this is a possible candidate". You've been around the block a number of times, and your AfD stats are not too bad, and hopefully will get better over time. Obviously I will need to look for any skeletons in the closet, but otherwise give me a prod in about six months and I'll see if you're suitable for a nomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Thanks mate, appreciate that, will do! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Where to get advice on RfA readiness

Hi there. You may be interested in getting advice from very experienced editors regarding areas for improvement if you are contemplating a run for RfA in the future. The analysis tend to be detailed, and give you very sound advice, especially on areas that you should work on, including back - room tasks that you would help to convince an RfA that you have sufficient knowledge of policy, ability to communicate politely and clearly under pressure, and all-round WP:CLUE. This link WP:ORCP will take you there. Also it is essential that you read WP:RFAADVICE. Everything you need to know regarding what a typical RfA would demand is there. Hope this helps. Irondome (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Irondome - I'd seen the WP:RFAADVICE but wasn't aware of the WP:ORCP, that looks really handy. Very helpful advice, thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

About Midnight Diner (Japanese TV Series) and apologies if I'm telling you things you already know :-)

Hi Deathlibrarian,
Apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know. I have WP:REDIRECT-d Midnight Diner (Japanese TV Series), an article you recently started, to Shinya Shokudō, as they appear to be about the same topic.
It's as counter-intuitive as heck, but copying content within Wikipedia does require attention to the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. Hell, I'm technically obliged to notify you of Wikipedia's Wikimedia:Terms of Use.
And apologies if I'm telling you about stuff you already know about you stuff you already know.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thanks Pete Shirt58 - yes I saw your redirect, cheers for the heads up. I decided to do a page specifically for the TV show, separate from the manga one. I think it now warrants it and should comply with creating a related article underWP:SPINOFF - it has four seasons (including a new one done in conkujction with Netflix) and is quite popular - and looks like it will get more well known through the US distribution, quite a few reviews for it on Google, some quite complimentary. If there is a copyright violation copying content within Wikipedia somewhere in the article, please let me know and I will fix it up poste haste... apologies if I copied something by accident, it's now written from scratch, so there isn't anything I am aware of. I"m still working on it at the moment, so will add more to it as we go. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done

I've been very busy and left many things in limbo over the past week but I popped in and was astonished by the work you've done in the Panzer Aces article. I'll delve deeper as time allows but from what I've seen you've done an incredible job! LargelyRecyclable (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!! - yeah I've put a lot of time into it. It was a bit of a bizarre article, I'd just like to make it like a normal article, with information that the average punter would normally expect to see on a page about panzer aces! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval 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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia-integrated academic journal

Hi, I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Humanities? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board aims to cover a range of fields and expertise across the huumanities, arts, social sciences, and allied fields.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of humanities (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:

• Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
• Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
• Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
• Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you, or those you have worked with. PS. A relevant article in Science and a more in-depth one in Health inform

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

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

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

Question

I actually agree with what you stated at Talk:Panzer ace: Its not really relevant what I believe, or what you believe. If what I believe does not matter, why do you state that the page is suffering from people interfering with it based on their political beliefs. What do you mean by that? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think people are pushing their own points of view, and specifically removing opposing points of view on this page. This is resulting in a lopsided page, which doesn't meet WP:Bal criteria. Our personal points of view *shouldn't matter*. We should be able to put up an article and have both points of view expressed, not matter what our personal views are. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think people have interfered in this page, observing it from some kind of anti-nazi viewpoint. Even recently, someone was attacked on the page because he was percieved as writing about Nazi political figures. The article is simply about tank commanders, it doesn't need to have people attacking it from all sides. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So you tell people not to push their own personal viewpoints here and are concerned about editors attacking it from all sides, but you are not pushing any viewpoint? It works both ways, you know. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not *removing* the opposing viewpoints from the article, I beleive both should be represented here - so not, I am not advancing/pushing one viewpoint by removing another. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, for that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. And again, you don't think you are pushing a viewpoint that your preferred interpretation (Tank Ace legend is mainstream viewpoint) should be included? Only one side is pushing a viewpoint? I'd like to understand the semantics here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC).

My personal viewpoint is that Tank aces exist, and their performance related to their skills, training and experience. I personally think that the Zaloga theory that they are mythical is fringe theory. If I was pushing my viewpoint, I would be trying to remove Zaloga as an RS, as you are trying to do with Forty and Kershaw. I'm not removing Zaloga as a source... I want all sources left on the page, those supporting my opinion and those that oppose it, so that WP:Bal is achieved. The reader can read it all and make up their own mind.01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Before accusing others of "pushing a viewpoint", you might want to read WP:POVPUSH: "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them." It cuts both ways. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil and pejorative to you K.e.coffman, however I honestly believe one viewpoint is being pushed here, as people who support the one viewpoint, are consistently removing the oppposing viewpoint from the article. That's what I honestly believe, and as a Wikipedia editor, I will continue to try to rectify this article until it is balanced. Could you please assist the process by supporting the reinserting of the opposing views? This is looking at being a long, drawn out process, and it doesn't need to be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

makumbe on Panzer Ace

Deaathlibrarian- Thanks for your message. I completely realize that I can be quite annoying- I think to others I must appear like the muck-crawling peasant in Monty Python's Holy Grail who keeps spouting annoying political arguments and finally yells (after Arthur yokes him) - "Help! I'm being oppressed! Help! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!" I'm not taking it too seriously- I've had real online threats before- this is just silly stuff. That being said- keep up the good fight on this history stuff. I'll stick to dogs and wolves. Cheers- Happy New Year- JeffMakumbe (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that its not too stressful for you. Cheers mate Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)