User talk:OyMosby/Archive 1

OyMosby, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi OyMosby! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note

I am currently away from Wikipedia due to family emergency. I do not know when or if I will be back. Please take care.

I wish you all the best, the most important thing is health. I hope you come back. Mikola22 (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you're fine. Don't forget to take care of yourself. All the best!--WEBDuB (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page and I appreciate that you could empathize with my point of view. I am not from the Balkan region and I am not interested in discussing which dishes are exclusive to which country, but I'll give an example. There's an English-language Croatian source I found and cited on the page, which talks about cevapi as if it's a curious adaptation from its neighbours who used to share one country with, and said that the Bosnians love it so much they'd put it on their national flag. They're not saying it's not popular or widely eaten in Croatia, but it's clear that certain things or symbols mean more to certain communities on an emotional level compared to others. Since wikipedia was originally envisioned as an encyclopedia, the more statements within a topic are cited with reliable sources bearing accurate information, the better it is. And thanks for pointing out my mistake to me, I haven't been reprimanded about it before by other editors. Haleth (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		Thank you for your for helping and editing numerous articles, for civility in discussion, and for the effort to find a middle ground and solution together. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks WEBDuB, much appreciate and a surprise!OyMosby (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Popovich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed! OyMosby (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Croatia page

Hi! I can't edit the Croatia page because is semi -protected but it clearly says that in the Duchy of Croatia page it was established Duchy of Croatia in the 7th century. This is Papal recognition in 9 th century about what the user Jingiby says who made the change. In Croatia page write the "Establishment" in info box Duchy of Croatia etc... please fix this, Thank you,Bye93.138.19.223 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

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 Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

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) 12:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

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 & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

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 the war in Ukraine

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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

need a reference for Vojvodina article

Hi OsMosby : in your edit on 13 June this year, on a section where you added details of "19,573 people were killed in Bačka", you have not provided a proper reference. Can you please expand in the reference ref name Ćurčić ? Thanks Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Slobodan Ćurčić, Broj stanovnika Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 1996 (pages 42, 43). This was a while ago so surprised to see this. I thought I put the page numbers down. OyMosby (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

/Voted! Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your message, OyMosby. Have a Happy New Year! Hopefully this year will be much better. I wish you and your family health and success in all of your endeavours in 2021. If you need literature or anything on ex Yugo artists - I can help you with that. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Duchy of Pannonian Croatia

Hi, OyMosby. You've merged this page, but that's not what was exactly said neither on the Talk page of Pannonian Slavs nor in the sources. Furthermore, you've deleted sources talking about Pannonian Croatia ([1], Prosvjeta). The merger is not appropriate, because Pannonian Slavs or (newly constructed) Slavs in Lower Pannonia are terms too wide to describe not a tribe or nation, but a COUNTRY (whether duchy or principality or whatever), although vassal (under the supreme Frankish rule), which is in historiography used to be called Duchy of Pannonian Croatia or as another similar term. Maybe you haven't heard of it, but there are various sources in Croatian language. So, please, let it stay as it had been so far or find another, more accurate and specific name. Greetings, --Silverije 19:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Of course I’ve read the talk page of the newly created article Slavs in Lower Pannonia. It’s not quite understandable, at least the parts of it, but still I can repeat and explain the main points I wrote to you:

1. You've deleted sources talking about Pannonian Croatia ([2], [3]).
2. The merger is not appropriate because Pannonian Slavs or Slavs in Lower Pannonia are terms too wide to describe not a tribe or nation, but a COUNTRY (whether duchy or principality). I wanted to say that “Pannonian Slavs” is a term appropriate for describing a tribe, group of tribes or nation. On the contrary, this term is NOT appropriate for describing a COUNTRY, whether it is called Duchy of Pannonian Croatia or Principality of Lower Pannonia. It’s a big difference.
3. Maybe you haven't heard of the Duchy of Pannonian Croatia, but there are various sources in Croatian language, including that one.

It seems that in the present article only the sources that mention Slavs in Lower Pannonia are cited, and others are ignored.

Let me say that there are similar articles dealing with medieval history of modern nations who carry different names (e.g. Grand Principality of Serbia). Should we rename it to “Slavs in Raška” or so? Please, think about it.

So, if anybody mergers or renames such articles, he must think about that they should be more accurate and more specific. Otherwise, such wide, generalized, “conglomerate” article cannot be acceptable for such purpose. Greetings, --Silverije 23:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi OyMosby! You are an expert in military history can you join the discussion here [[4]]. These are changes [[5]]. And on this second page a lot of it has been deleted, so if you can check. [[6]]. These are changes [[7]]. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.78.117 (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In the fist one the guy is clearly as sockpuppeting account edit warring with multiple people disagree with them. To say “ Plan was not "greater Serbia" (term which itself is wrong translation) but to rescue surrounded JNA soldiers in Vukovar and to help citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group.” is incredibly biased and pov. It was a military disaster as they had major losses for what was to be an easy takeover. Then the Vukovar massacres are an extra element. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were a sock of the second page you linked l. That editor was blocked for sockpuppeting. I undid their deletion of sourced content. I’m amazed it went unnoticed for so long. I undid the edit.

Also have you considered making an account to make it easier to have your own talk page? Also people will respect your edits more if have an account rather a random IP address. Cheers, OyMosby (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on all this, but I've been browsing some pages on eng wikipedia and the admins they edit, so I asked you to take a look at those pages. Maybe I'll make an acc, but I'm still just reading. Thanks93.142.78.117 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the Genocide section here as genocide was not committed “by all sides” during the 90’s conflict. Ethnic cleansing and massacres however were. Also fixed that unnoticed mess. It was very misleading. Also the linked massacres, some were poorly done. One had no stats on victims.OyMosby (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I will likely have to get admins involved if the suspected user continues edit warring as well. OyMosby (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

All right, you admins know best how to edit and talk to other editors on the talk page. I don't really know how to work with a computer like you, and I don't really know English. Goodbye and Thank you93.142.78.117 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not an admin. Just an editor. There are admin boards you can seek for help with problematic edits or conflicts. You seem like a very well spoken a technically capable editor. You are welcomed to make an account and engage in the community! Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay now I know the difference between an admin and a editor, I know little about the computer for now just reading. Bye93.142.78.117 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi OyMosby Look at this more i won't change because i don't know. Is it [[8]] reliable source? These are changes [[9]] .Thank you .Bye93.142.78.117 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be better asking another editor. Also I really recommend you make an account. That way you can reach more editors and find those more experienced. I appreciate your faith in my input. But I’m not that familiar with these subjects. Perhaps contact the other editor that you spoke to when you contacted me before. Also I will be off Wikipedia for a few days as I am busy. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also the person who created that page was banned for nationalistic edits. Maybe Peacemaker67 would be more helpful. But he is very busey with MilHist subjects at the moment.OyMosby (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I sent the same message to the user Tezwoo let him look, maybe he knows.I can't send User Peacemaker67 because I don't have an acc for the talk page. Thank you for your reply.Bye93.142.78.117 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

He blocks edits on his page from IPs anyway so you would only be able to contact him if you have an account. I know you said you aren’t tech savvy but you seem more than capable enough. Also again people will listen to you more as you become more known and build a reputation. Even if you only want to do small edits from time to time. I really recommend it. Personally I feel Wikipedia should make it a rule that only registered users edit. Nothing against you but many IPs have caused lasting damage to articles that are hard to keep track of. OyMosby (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

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 Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

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) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the information. I'll keep that in mind. In solidarity, Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Question on interpretation

I consulted Consanguinity#Christianity, it's definitely about marrying relatives. Given the fact that even the underlying definitions changed, these differences in canon law are hard to explain, and are actually not fully elaborated upon even in the article which focuses on the topic of consanguinity itself. Since the example that you brought up makes only a passing mention of this topic, it is perhaps sufficient to leave the current wording, as vague as it may be. (And perhaps linking it to Consanguinity#Christianity might help the reader?) GregorB (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

~

Please use decent diffs, and not something like this. I've also noticed that only 1/2 of your edits all over Wiki has diffs. That is something you can easily work on. I can't see why you removed the part about marriage to relatives? Gregor has confirmed it as well, it's well-sourced and relevant for that period on several levels. Do you, perhaps, find it in poor taste or something like that? Customs and viewpoints were extremely different 1000 years go and we should not judge them by our 2021 standards. If one is to examine Dušan's Code he/she/it would be appalled by the way that rule of law functioned. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry you think that. But most of my edits have explanations in my diffs so that is incorrect perhaps refectory of your own lacking diff approach “Stop pov pushing olease ty” accusations. Maybe work on that there bud. So please approach people in a better way than assuming “shame of intermarriage” from a thousand years ago that you felt compelled to add to three different articles in a span of minutes for some specific reason :) . Gregor B was another matter of interpretation not the reason I removed it. I didn’t remove just that but the part about Slavonic texts so please.....Just because it is well sourced doesn’t mean it fits the section. As Tezwoo explained. But I think you know this. As my diff explained. This is unrelated to the Hungarian union era. Which you didn’t give Tezwoo problems with. Sorry but I’m no lesser willing to call this out than them. My diff explained very clearly what you knew. This is not a Croat vs Serb thing. Never was. So what archaic laws Serbs or Croats had is irrelevant to me on their own. Context is the moral of this story, Sadko. Context is important. And the info was taken out of context and out in an unrelated timeline/section. That’s all. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

History of Croatia

I added Ottoman period in this page. But, you deleted with this sentences: It was not an entire vassal state like other states. Parts were occupied but it doesn’t make the entire state under Ottoman rule. That is the problem other editors are pointing out. Hopefully I was able to explain.. However, reason of deletion was incorrect, baseless and contradicted. I explained your wrong decision with some articles:

1) Venetian presence in Croatia was limited in some parts of Istria and Dalmatia. But, Republic of Venice could find place in this page as separate caption. However, Ottomans ruled most of continental Croatia with regions of Slavonia and Dalmatian hinterland, some littoral parts of Dalmatia, regions of Banovina, Lika and Baranja, some parts of Kordun and Moslavina, couldn't find any place in it as one. Why ?

2) Hungary never ruled all of Croatia (some parts of it were briefly ruled by Kingdom of Bosnia) as vassal state. But, Kingdom of Hungary between 1102 and 1527 could find place in this page as separate caption. However, Ottoman Empire couldn't find any place in it as one. Was a fierce contradiction, wasn't it ?

3) Austrian (Habsburg) presence in Croatia was limited in some parts of Istria, when she took over Hungarian Croatia in 1527. Boundaries of Archducy of Austria, Republic of Venice and Ottoman Empire were repeatedly changed according to results of wars among them until 1791, Austrians took last parts of Ottoman Croatia according to Treaty of Sistova. Austrians also took Venetian one in 1797 and held until 1918 except brief French rule of it. They finally held all of Croatia after taking Palagruža from Kingdom of Italy in 1883. Habsburg Monarchy could find place in it as separate caption. But, Ottoman Empire couldn't find any place in it as one. Why ?

4) Republic of Ragusa was vassal state of Kingdom of Hungary (1358-1458), Ottoman Empire (1458-1806) and Habsburg Monarchy (1684-1806). She could find place in it as separate caption. But, Ottomans couldn't find any place in it as one. Was the fierce contradiction, wasn't it ?

Please, you return from this mistake and give a separate caption for Ottoman Empire, deserved her value in it. Yours sincerelyCemsentin1 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your email

Please don't email me every diff of every editor who you think that something bad. I looked at the edits in the article on that movie. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn’t. Instead of leaving such a message on my page you could have reaponded via the email in the first place stating your preference not to discuss in email. I’d have no issue making this a talk page matter on your page if that is your preference. But the email contained private matters between you and me not simply about others. A trust in confidentiality browken that is not fixable. As a boss once told me “it is easy to hurt trust than it is to gain or maintain it” Would be simple and not so dramatic airing personal matters. Would save future emails of me not knowing they went through.....

Also never knew if you got them due to radio silence. You didyeven acknowledged my response to you under Ed’s advice on Peacemaker’s talk page. Where I don’t get what editing snd bringing up Ustase concentration camps and knives had to do with the movie page. Feel free to edit watch Chetnik war crimes in World War II. I asked for admins to watch the film page and I said repeatedly I am to blame in part too.

There are pages of edits in the history there that I think you didn’t have the chance to see being an admin I know you are busey. Apparently all of them are fine accept for mine. Hey I accept your neutral observation. But really surprised to hear. I acknowledge I part of the problem. Not the sole problem. Hence I don’t want to spam your talk page on sensitive matters between you or me which is what most the email was. Not about others. Wasn’t about the movie onoy.. And it was one email about diffs. The others were me asking for guidance and apologizing for long responses. But I get how things go now for future. Don’t worry. You won’t hear a call for help or guidance and bothered in the future from me. my phone messes up my response so sorry if you get a lot of pings Have a nice day, Drmies.OyMosby (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

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

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Great to be onboard!OyMosby (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 15:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

Hi there, please help me to revert the factual edits of mine. They have been removed by Serbian snowflakes who forgot that Djokovic is a pro-Slavic and has maternal roots from Croatia … Leesjy2k (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would gladly appreciate your help! Leesjy2k (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Leesjy2k: I’m not sure of the editor’s background nor does it matter (if it’s personal they can leave their personal matters off Wikipedia), however their explanation made little sense. Djokovic is an example of building bridges over ethnic divides. How that is trivial or bad is bizarre. The section is small to begin with and about supporting sportsmanship and fellow sportsmen and women. Seems like a no brainer. I would advise bringing it up on the talk oage if it is remived again. This always happens when these articles are featured on the main page. But TS is RS. The sources are reliable sources. Whether people like it or not is irrelevant. And the is relevant to the section. Honestly this really gets tiring after a while. I remember when editors kept censoring Novak Djokovic’s Croatian roots. As if it makes him any less a Serbian National or representative. These petty ethnic nationalist point scoring is so pointless and unnecessary. That’s my 2 cents. OyMosby (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, see these changes from this user [[10]] who writes without a source on this page and no one deletes that [[11]] it must be a suckpuppet [[12]][[13]].89.172.58.27 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s very likely JohnGotten who keeps making socks. I believe Booth his account is under investigation. OyMosby (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please give me a sec

Hey. I have quite a few people to respond to. You are edit conflicting me. Please give me a fighting chance! El_C 22:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Hah sorry just all these issues arise at once. The Croatisezation page you locked had a last minute no consensus edit put in right as you locked the page. Loss of Italian identity but no mention of Italinization forced on Slovenes and Croats in the areas. Not properly sourced additions of Italians being the majority in Coastal Croatia. And there are unsourced editions. NPOV was supposed to be discussed on the talk page as you can see on the article talk page. Editor went forth without consensus Article should be back to before sock puppetry involvement is all. Simple Revert of them would stabilize the article so all can talk about it on a stable reference point. Again sorry about the edit conflict lol. Its hard to keep up with all the disruptive explosions of ip and puppet pov warriors. Thanks for taking time to help. OyMosby (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Vacant0 Editor who made the addition right before you locked the page agrees to undo themselves but can’t as you locked it. So both of us consent. I think this “right version” rule doesn’t apply. Had it been to warring versions then Id agree with you! Also thanks for stepping in. OyMosby (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

OyMosby, this was just a request for you to hold off on any further edits to my talk page until I got a chance to enter my multi-thread submission. I don't really intend on splitting the discussion here otherwise. El_C 23:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry. Just overwhelmed here on wiki. And impatient :) OyMosby (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Fringe

viewpoint [14] There was no any real sort of independence or anything like it, as you are presenting it, it was just cosmetics, Hungarians/Austrians were in charge of every executive position, naturally. Yugoslav Croat is the most precise version, when all facts are considered. We should not put lands administrated by 1 Empire in the same sentence with a sovereign state or states. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say they were “independent”. I am tired of this “fringe” tired claim by some editors (I don’t mean you Sadko to be clear, you have probably seen extreme right of both sides try to delegitimize each other. I hate this ever present ethnic fighting between the same ethnic grouops just different names, religions and traditions and dialects, my view at least) who speak as if The Kingdom of Croatia vanished for 900 years when really it was even acknowledged by the Austria-Hungarian empire itself. Slovenia nor any other territories had such status so close to practically being closer to Independent than under total control. Anything like it? They were literally an autonomous state with a government and borders. They answer to a Hungarian king who was known as king of two kingdoms. Croatia was in union with Hungary. Not just “cosmetics”. Croatia was a state within the Empire. Sorry it existed, not “fringe”. I was pretty certain tha the Kingdom of Croat and Slavonia was a special case. Independent-ish. So much so it almost became a Tripartite member. Pretty certain they had their own government, passports and citizen status in the empire and so on. It wasn’t so clear cut as some make it appear. I have seen another editor go on a rant a month or so ago on a rant including this subject. I know an editor very well experienced with Hungarian and Austrain history involving Austria-Hungary @KIENGIR: correct me if I’m wrong as we spoke about this once before. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting this lovely example of romanticization of history. You simply need to read more. Croats, like other Slavs, had the RL status of second-class or third-class citizens. Not sure where you are getting this from. Sabor existed but it was not able to do much. The money was distributed from the heart of the Empire, and those were not Slavs. They saw pretty much all Slavs: Croats, Slovaks and Serbs and other as more soldiers and taxpayers - infantry for their wars and money for the treasury. There was a lot of discrimination and Magyarization. The elite and several noble families from modern-day Croatia had their privileges and did very little for their people. In fact, it did vanish for 900 years, just adding one more crownland and giving it minimum rights does not mean anything, considering the Empire did not care for the Slavs, to put it mildly. The status of Croatia was not that far from a province with a colonial government. "Passport/citizen rights myths" are simply an interpretation of historical facts and those myth of self-importance and "golden years" exist in every nation. Cheers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting this lovely example of downplaying alternative history. Sabor had a lot of jurisdiction over the kingdom. Never said equal to Vienna. The military frontier even handed back under Croatian control later on. The Kingdom of Croatia was a recognized Kingdom by the monarchy that ruled over three. Didn’t say Croatia was equal to them. But totally different than Bosnia and parts of Serbia that were in the empire which didn’t have state status. The Kingdom of Croatia is listed as a belligerent in battles on Wikipedia. Sorry bud. I read countless hours of this part of history as it greatly fascinates me. I’m not chest thumping just saying the facts. Downplay Croatian and Hungarian history all you want. I read the books. Non-Croatian books don’t worry. I know every Croatian author is biased so to make sure I get the right info. So spare wasting any more of both our times. And take this to the talk page not to me. As more than one editor put Croatian. I don’t understand the big deal as both states are recognized. People in the Kingdom of Croatia in the empire had the national Croatian designation in their IDs and passports. Of course overall under the Hungarian Crown and later main ruling Austrian crown over Hungary and Croatia. Croatia was almost made a Tripartite member before WWI. They gained more and more power in the empire as the years went on. Croats were treated differently than for example another Savic group that had bad experiences due annexations of Vojvodina and Bosnia. Notice how for 900 years there wasn’t civil wars like in Yugoslavia? Croats actually enjoyed being in the empire. Austria and Hungary heavily invested in Croatia and yes there were some occasions of attempted Magyarization that was a specific nationalist government at the time. There was push back and it stopped. Most of the 900 years peace and fighting Ottomans together. Notice how Hungary and Austria have food relations today. Although Orban being a nationalist has made Greater Hungary comments mainly aimed at Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania and part of Voijvodina. Where Serbs were treated poorly. These are the facts. I am very well educated on the matter. I never said Croatia was Its own empire or Independent state. I’m not some Croatian nationalist revisionist idiot like those on Croatia Wikipedia that highjacked the platform. I base my history mainly on non-Balkan sources. You should do the same. Even the articles about the matter state they became a Union, shared kings and so on of everything I said. No “romanticizing” just telling the facts. Whether liked or not. Irrelevant. For example a Serbian born in the conquered Kingdom of Serbia by Ottomans is still a Serbian national as Serbia became a vassal state with less rights. But still I would advocate they were Serbian not “Turkish” or “Ottoman” for goodness sake. Conversation is over, Sadko.

That was funny. Read more. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha yeah I found this conversation hilarious 😆. I’m sorry for the harsh parts of my response. But not all Slavs had the same experience. I always read more each day. And what I said is what I read. Sorry the books don’t match your POV. However you came to the conclusion. It’s apparent you should do more reading about this part of history. It’s all on Wikipedia to so surprised about this disagreement. I’m not saying that to be an ass I’m saying you are missing a chunk here that I don’t think you are very aware of.Take care and stay well Sadko.OyMosby (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The various historical views over the status of Croatia may be read on the relevant articles, it was a personal union (which coincides the Hungarian "treatment" of the subject), having their own affairs, the king is common. During Austria-Hungary, the Croatian-Hungarian settlement is binding, nominally the affairs did not change, however were both part of the Transleithanian part of the Monarchy. I should check on how many deputies they sent to Budapest to represent their affairs, nevertheless it was just the mirror of their own institutions, which did not change and operated. Corpus Separatum was a special exception. The citizenship issues are difficult, not fully resolved, it's very likely from 1879 one common Hungarians citizenship would be introduced for all the Hungarian part of the monarchy, but it not necessarily would effect local papers (detailed see these discussuion of the Nikola Tesla ethnicity discussion archives, especially mine with DBachmann, there are more details, I hope I did not mistaken the date). One more outside the topic. Orbán could not be treated as a classical nationalist, but nevertheless a patriot, any so-called "Greater Hungary" comment - I don't know even one or what would this mean, there was one historic globe picture shared the day of mature exam for students, e.g. - would just be aimed not falsify history and respect it, however with Ukraine such did not happen, debates are because of the recent new language law, with Slovakia the relations are now better then ever, however there are still unresolved issues, especially the application of citizenship law there. Regarding Serbia, we have a longer period practically the best relations from the mentioned, fortunately the old incidents did not resurface.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Thank you for your helpful response! Agreed! As for relations, some Serbian I think take umbrage with Hungary over what happened in WWI, WWII Voijvodina, etc. However for citizenship, Tesla was a different case being born on the Military Frontier. I thougt you had mentioned on another article of a Croatian scientists who you said though being born in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia during A-U that he would be dubbed Croatian as the Kingdom had a special case for nationality of citizens there while in Union with Hungary and under Hungarian Crown? I’d have to find the link. So would Mestrovic be dubbed a Croatian or Hungarian artists? As for Orban, being a nationalist isn’t meant as a insult just that he is more to the right and focused on Hungarian related issues. Hungarian friends of mine sent me articles quoting his irredentist views. (which isn’t surpising for the region as so Have Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian, Russian etc officials or ex officials of the state sya such things at times. I’ve read that newspaper views him in a more negative light with worse terms to describe him. They painted him in that he wished a “reunion of the Hungarian Empire” or something to that extent which made the Croatian and Serbian and other country governments not too thrilled. Again this is what I hear in the news in the US. I know it’s not going to always be neutral and such. Or my friends may not not like him. Regardless, Thanks for verifying what I said about the state terms Croatia and Hungary had for centuries. I’ll try to find that article of the nobel prize winning scientist where you gave details in description of why ue would still be considered Croatian national in the crown lands. Will follow up. Thanks again! OyMosby (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, since you mentioned Orbán, I just summed up recent situations. Military Frontier may complicate, the citizenship issue is still not clear regardless what I said. That article was the Leopold Ruzicka article, where there is as well a detailed discussion, Tezwoo solved it like linking Transleithania to Croatian-Hungarian, we don't know better solution yet lack of information. Well, this is the catch, I don't know any of his "irredentist views", I'd like to see such quotes. The press and how he is presented is utterly biased, we are laughing because far-right circles consider Orbán just a fake national, who have some rhetoric, in the end does/did nothing when it would be needed, just want to gather widespread all right-wing votes etc. I know these publications, inside/outside Europe, they are sometimes raw propaganda, but those who live in the country and really know internal sitations may be laughing. The U.S. media is mostly akin, completely taking the a one-sided stance, far away from neutral approach, but in coherence with the domestic oppositon. There is a news/information war between the right-wing, left-wing circles and their medias, so you have to read both and hopefully the truth will be in the middle. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Yes that was the article! Tezwoo also was part of it. Hungarian-Croatian got it. I remember something along these lines. As for Orbán, trust me I know. I agree to a good extents your response about him. No worries. He is not the only politician to receive views from different side. Same thing in Croatia and other countries that will be hated by someone and somewhere possible twist words to instill divisions amongs friendly nations. I know the EU is angry with him and Claud Junker called him “hello dictator” in-front of all leaders at a EU meeting. So yeah EU and news media friendly with the EU would likely have biases. Don’t worry I read all types of sources to get a better picture and I know some have an axe to grind against him. Hungarian friend of mine might be more Liberal hence their negative opinion on him as well as another friend’s wife from Hungary. Politics, media, the masses that believe everything they read. Its how it goes. Thanks again for explaining. :) OyMosby (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely, certain crticics hold, as nothing is flawless, I understand those prespectives as well, in the US is much more freedom/poortunity - and the express of it - like most of the countries in EU, nominally, while here if some does not cling with the mainstream, could be labeled as a heretic, even when secretly later they copy that heretic, but if they do what was did by else, then it's ok :-) Many people left Hungary to work/live abroad, but it was not different or better when the opposition was in power, simpy CEE countries get much backward because of the Communism, unlike the West. Juncker is a funny person, giving even punches and huge embraces to colleagues, even whe he is not drunken :D Indeed, many EU officials afraid to express what they really mean, because of a fear of condemnation/stigmatization, though informally they let know Hungarians if they agree, remember the migration crisis, when we built the fence, we became Nazis, when Austrians built it, they said it's not a fence, but a gate with two wings :-). That's all about politics. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

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 female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Hi. I don't understand your reasoning on the Operation Storm article. At its core, the Operation was done in order to re-take territory held by Krajina Serbs. That's it. The expulsion of Croatian civilians was certainly a result of the occupation of the territory though. As you know, that information wasn't in the lead until you added it. If information about expulsion of Croats and crimes committed by Serb forces is there then I don't see why it can't be mentioned that Croatian forces also engaged in cleansing operations in parts of the Krajina. Otherwise, it makes it seem like only one side engaged in violations of the customs of war.

There's also the issue of the info being awkwardly placed now, as the lead starts discussing the Operation itself and then essentially goes into a by the way years prior the Croatian population was subjected to atrocities. My version summarized the body chronologically which is how the lead is supposed to be. I'm posting on your talk page since we seem to be the only ones active on that article. --Griboski (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Griboski:. I appreciate you reaching out as I would like to go in more detail about my reasoning there. Though I mention the article talk page as it can bring in (preferably non Balkan) participants to chime in. As I don’t claim to be the arbiter of ultimate format and rules for intros. Here is my logic behind what I added while back and why it made sense to me for that existing alone ins the scope of the operation.

Being the article is about Operation storm, I figured it would make sense the context as to what motivated the offensive to commence. It was not solely about claiming the Krijan and Eastern Slavonia territories but the expelling of Croatian and non Serb inhabitants there leading to the military move. If this article was the Yugoslav wars or a good example the Ethnic Cleansing in the Bosnian war, it absolutely makes sense to discuss these crimes of every participating belligerent.

It would also make sense to include the ethnic cleansing of Croatian Serb civilians (or as one might prefer Yugoslav Serb or ethnic Serb civilians as apposed to Croatian) that occurrd during the offensive at the hands of Croatian soldiers. Which absolutely happened and very much relevant for the lead for sure.

Including what I did I believe does not portray the Croatian side as totally innocent. Or the Krajina military as the only party guilty of war crimes. I don’t see readers coming to that conclusion either based on the the coverage in the intro. As the lead discusses the discrimination during and many years after of ethnic Serbs in Croatia and the violence they faced such as the murder of the elderly which is discussed if I recall correctly. This is my rational. I get where you are coming from and well intentioned. But my addition was meant in relation to the motivating factors and the reprisal crimes that would occur during the operation. I hope I better illustrated my way of thinking about it. Again this may be better for the talk page to get other opinions on the matter. I am completely open to that! Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from, but we should be careful about using the crimes that occurred prior against Croats as some sort of motivation or excuse for the atrocities perpetrated during Storm. The version I put forth adds more context and background and flows better IMO. It has been like that for a little while. When we're talking about the crimes by Krajina Serbs it is in the context of the war, and so crimes by the other side can just as easily be included. Articles like these don't get much traction outside of the Balkans and the only other neutral active editor in this area (PM) is occupied so I don't think there's much use in pressing this on the talk page. --Griboski (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

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 Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

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 intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

I see you writing about the battle for Vukovar in the list for military disasters. I want to edit the battle for Vukovar after user Hohum removed Pir's victory, and it says in the source, Why doesn't anyone change it, and it says in the source. I want to change it but the site doesn't allow it, I'm new and I don't know, like that the page is blocked for editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&action=history 93.140.17.82 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

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 RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on 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) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Another example of concern

(There was a weird typo in your message, "jew" instead of "new", please fix.) I noticed that edit, it's kind of par for the course, though, as this is not nearly the first instance of that issue to crop up. This particular pattern of edits in and of itself still can indicate a genuinely new user, because that happens relatively often. This off-the-cuff single line stuff isn't as worrying to me as is the dozens of KB of weird pamphlets that pass for articles on foreign-language Wikipedias being translated indiscriminately. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

About the Tito quote about Serbs in the Partisans, it's another weird axe-grinding issue that's been discussed at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans before. In the context of the article on Serbia, it's easy to drop the Tito quote as a primary source, but it can and should be replaced with a citation to a historian, but at the same time, it's kind of a tautology, as the Serbs are indeed the majority of the population in Serbia so there's nothing particularly telling or controversial about it there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoare

Well maybe you could try with Hoare, I did noticed he is quite respected here on english wikipedia, he gave estimation on percentage of every ethnic group, also would suggest that you maybe try to cooperate with user Giborski on that question since they are also considered as respected and neutral editor in that area. I noticed you two cooperated quite well in the past Theonewithreason (talk) 21.August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

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 Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

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 Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Eugen Kvaternik

Pozdrav OyMosby! Vidim da se razumiješ u ww2. Pa imam pitanje. Eugen Kvaternik [[15]] koji je živio do 1871 godine nikad nije imao potomke pa ni ne može biti djed Slavku Kvaterniku i njegovom sinu iz ww2 kao što je stavio korisnik Amanuensis Balkanicus. Korisnik Amanuensis Balkanicus je stavio tri izvora od kojih samo jedan nešto kaže o tome , ostala dva ništa ne kažu i to je lažno stavljeno, jer u njima ništa ne piše o tome. Na stranicama iz Hrvatske isto ne piše nigdje da je Eugen Kvaternik koji je živio do 1871 imao potomke .Prema mom istraživanju od Slavka Kvaternika se je djed zvao Antun ,ne Eugen. Ovo je Eugen Kvaternik iz 19 stoljeća https://www.geni.com/people/Eugen-Kvaternik/6000000069655991081 i nema potomke. A ovo je Slavko Kvaternik https://www.geni.com/people/Slavko-Kvaternik/6000000038200151011 i njegov otac je Ljudevit Kvaternik https://www.geni.com/people/Ljudevit-Kvaternik/6000000039352585170 , a od Ljudevita Kvaternika otac je Antun https://www.geni.com/people/Antun-Kvaternik/6000000083018819002 . Znači oni nemaju veze , osim samo što imaju isto prezime. 89.172.104.100 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

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 British conscription and German warship raiders

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, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Can you check if this falls under this article. He added “see also” that no one puts in that info box [[16]]. The IP is a sock of JohnGotten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).He does editing with 177- 179 ip ranges these are some [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]], [[25]].89.172.78.224 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@89.172.78.224: I am not an admin. I also recommend that you create an account. I am not familiar with how to report a puppet. This likely is him as he has been troubling Wikipedia for a while now. @Peacemaker67: thoughts? OyMosby (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess someone will block it, because that’s for sure JohnGotten89.172.78.224 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Here he came back again :) [[26]] I hope the administrators block it 89.172.78.224 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

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 Canadian junior officers 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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

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 the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

fyi for S-C and the standardized Yugoslav languages

You stated you were somewhat confused ... 'Serbo-Croatian' is the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, et al as defined by linguists. Like "English" is spoken by Englanders, the Scots, the Americans, Australians and parts of Canada, etc. Due to the ultra-nationalist situation in the Balkans, S-C has been "standardized" by Croatia, Serbia, B-H, et al into official languages for political reasons, such as Croatian or Serbian language, after the ill-will caused by the Yugoslav Wars and even earlier events. Due to the very touchy nature of some of our Balkan editors, it may be best to refer to books of films by the "language" they originate from, to avoid the firestorm of edit-warring that can result if one doesn't . . . 50.111.40.110 (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What? Anything published during Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian. I am not the confused one. OyMosby (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Milan Tepić

Hello! Can you join the conversation on the talk page about [[27]]. These are changes [[28]]. I don't know English very well. Thank you 93.136.186.247 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)