User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23

History of the Yejju Oromo tribe

Hi Buckshot06, content recently deleted is the history of the north Ethiopian Oromos, Yejju Oromo tribe, that is also part of the larger Oromo ethnicgroup. Besides, most of the content added in the article is about Oromos being oppressed like this one phrase for example saying "According to Akbar Ahmad, Amharic sayings such as "Saw naw Galla? (is it human or Galla?)" highlighted Amhara's contempt towards the Oromo.". Based on Wikipedia:Conflicting sources saying "Instead the article should contain a mention that different information exists.", I think wikipedia readers need to get complete and balanced information. I was wondering if you could please not oppose the inclusion of that sourced history. I am realy worried that article being just about "Oromos are Oppressed" as always been told by Oromo Liberation Front. I am realy not on any of the sides but I think those neutral writers who wrote "Oromos also played great role in Ethiopian history and that Oromos also were masters of Amhara" should also be included. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: I concur with Buckshot06's revert. You may have missed this note on Aleksandr Bulatovich in Formation of modern Ethiopia section. We can't add unverifiable OR because you are "really worried", but we are attempting to summarize the other side and that individual Oromos held senior positions. Your impatience, OR and misreading of sources is not helping. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, What do you think we should do about other writers opinion saying the Oromos ruled the Ethiopia without loosing their identity? Me saying I am African or Ethiopian does not mean I have denied my tribal identity. What should we also do about the sources saying before centralization (formation) there was continuous wars between Oromo tribes (also continues war between Amhara tribes) should we avoid this source and let people assume there was one united independent peacful Oromia state before 19th centuary? Putting an end to continues tribal wars is part of the Oromo leaders legacy? Let's not complain those old leaders did not give us democracy because even When USA nation is built it was by war and women were not even allowed to vote until nineteenth century. Ms Sarah, please do not remind me to not to compare with USA when this "According to Mekuria Bulcha, Oromo were colonized by Amhara just like European colonialists in pre-20th century period. " is added in the article comparing with European colonialism where no black African was not even allowed to rule his own tribal land, leave alone the coloniser England. Indeed, many Oromos in full blood have ruled the Amhara people and I donot know why support the censor of this kind of information. Isn't it because of the skillful leadership of the Oromo leaders that Ethiopia is now known as a peacful country (despite having the most diverse nation) unlike neighouring stateless one ethnic and one religion nation Somalia. Therfore, for these reasons I think the article should present all views and let the readers take which ever view they want to take. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, it summarizes both sides, "loosing their identity" version and "not loosing their identity" version. Your attempts to drag in European colonialism, Italians, war in USA, colonizer England, so on, is unhelpful, a lot of gobbledygook, difficult to comprehend and irrelevant. NPOV means we explain the sides, we don't take a side. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I hope you have seen the content added in Oromo article saying "Amharas colonised Oromo while even comparing it with European colonialism". Don't you think that should be balanced with another experts opinion explaining how European colonialism was and that there was no single colonized Ashanti black African leading the government of the colonizer nation, England. This opinion is also sourced by reliable source [1] and before I summerise and add it could you please let me know if you find it appropriate to add this "According to Mekuria Bulcha, Oromo were colonized by Amhara just like European colonialists in pre-20th century period. "? As said my objective is just to give readers balanced and complete information in which, I beleive, what wikipedia stands for. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, WP:NPOV says NPOV means "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. (WP:WEIGHT).

We do not need extensive diversions into what the racial mix of the government of the United Kingdom was at the time. That's what WP:Links are for. Anyone interested in the composition of the UK government at the time can easily click through and read a bunch of different articles about the people who made up the government at the time. Of course, they were all white middle-aged men. But this is so basic and intrinsic to practically all European colonialisation that it does not have enough WP:WEIGHT to be placed within the article. Please feel free to continue to debate the issue, however, here on my talkpage or elsewhere as you wish. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment Buckshot06. I am realy into convincing one another and not realy into forcing POV by intimation just like the other editors are doing who avoid to deal with the content presented and focus on the editor, being treated like I have nothing to say — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, we need fairness and compassion towards all editors. You have conflicts with @Duqsene and others, but everyone is important. The wall of text and replies on Talk:Oromo people and Talk:Amhara people is evidence that your concerns have been considered and replied to. You are important. Duqsene is important. Every editor is important.

As I wrote many weeks ago, we have already toned down the language, because what we say and how we say is important. The chapters in the cited scholarly sources are a depressing reading (e.g. routine kidnapping and torture of children / women / men, broken families from stolen children, chains and killing of people in caravans, chopping breasts off of women who complain too much, castration and chopping limbs of men who resist too much, raiding villages and slave hunting based on the target's religion and ethnic group, routine dehumanization and abuse, etc). The wiki summary is the essential, sans-emotional overview (and none of the above).

Yes, others should not treat you like you have nothing to say. Yet, you too should not treat others or scholarly publications as if they have nothing to say. Collaborative work is essential to the wikipedia project. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, what am saying is present views fairly. If you think it is important to include Oromos being mutilated also include Oromos mutilating others, although I do not think adding such kind of stories in ethnicgroup articles is apropriate. See these sources [2][3][4] also saying it was a custom of the Oromos to cut of the women breasts. Penis trophy (castration of neighboring tribes) to proof masculinity was another custom (ritual) practiced by Oromos and was important to get wife at that time [5]. Most importantly see this saying the Oromo Ras Gugsa [6], who ruled the Amhara people, will castrate and cut off the womens breasts who do not make allegiance to him. All those are terrifying but if you find them necessary then we could create "warfare in Ethiopia" article and discuss them so that readers get complete and balanced information, otherwise please do not present one ethnicgroup as holy & victim and demonize others. In the Oromo article you have summerised other editors contribution saying Oromos were subject to "amputation", "mutilation", "mass killed", "millions killed", "savage", "inferior", "is it human or Galla" etc as if Oromos themselves did not treat neighboring people the same way. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Much of that text is by numerous other editors with whom you are slowly edit warring with. The more you try to sugar coat, the more other editors such as Duqsene and Stumink will attempt to expose the bitter under layer. If you try to understand and recognize the other side, odds increase that others will too. Yes, the Galla/Oromo text is largely from me, with some sentences inserted by you. That section is "toned down" already than what the reliable sources are stating. We can't right great wrongs in wikipedia, only faithfully summarize all sides from the reliable sources. That is what admin Doug Weller tried to explain to you a while ago. Any way, as Buckshot06 notes below, please be careful with your language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch, my last comment is just for information, so you know that there are also victims on the other side and It's based on your last comment with terrifying stories. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I'm frankly surprised at you saying '..I do not think adding such kind of stories in ethnicgroup articles in apropriate.' Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; if solidly reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources, such as recent academic journal articles, mention such things, then we would be censoring WP if we left them out. Why do you say Ms Sarah Welch is 'present[ing] one ethnicgroup as holy & demonize others'? We only write one article at a time; there are all kinds of reasons (including availability of WP:Reliable Sources) why an editor would spend a considerable amount of time working on one article, and then work on others. I am also concerned that such comments represent a WP:Personal Attack, which you may have been warned about in the past. Would you kindly please clarify what you mean, and respond? Sincerely, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06, thanks for the questions. Why I said that is because this ".......by Amharas" is repeatedly used in the article. For example instead of reviewing multiple sources and simply summerise as "Oromos were referred as Gallas by others" in the article it is added as "Oromos were referred as Gallas by Amharas" while the truth is even Somalis, Afars, Muslims and all the neighboring people as well as Europeans also used that name in the past. Their is also a content saying "Pagan Gallas were classified as Red by Amharas" while other sources say it's the muslims who dominate the slave trade. Instead of making ethnigroup articles into just about slavery and war related history we could just move those kind of stories to like "Slavery in Ethiopia" or "Warfare in Ethiopia" articles. If those kind of information are necessary then we could explain crimes of all tribes as well as crimes by all political parties there by opening section for each of them so that readers get complete and balanced information, so that people do not get the impression that their tribe (or the political party they support) never committed crimes but others did. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether such things as slavery and war related history is WP:NOTABLE in relation to a particular ethnic group. If such events are attributed by reliable scholarly sources -- the peer-reviewed journal article being at the very top -- then they belong in the article. Many nationstates consist of many different ethnic groups. Most are WP:NOTABLE and have notable histories, which should be included in the ethnic group article. Placing such content in articles that use the name of the present-day nationstate would distort the relationships of the ethnic group, which may not have been interacting with the present-day nationstate or its predecessors. Better to leave it in the ethnic group article -- and make sure all the ethnic group articles are eventually fully complete (Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED.) Hope that explains why everything shouldn't be placed in 'in Ethiopia..' articles. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. This is a long discussion, I think now you can archive it. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we have taken a large space of your talk page. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Check the page size overall and this section overall; no need as yet. What I will do is create a permalink to the Yejju Oromo talkpage, as it's related discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, since much of the discussion is also related to Oromo article you could also link with that article. Thanks again for the advise — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you some more, plain-speaking, advice, User:EthiopianHabesha. Please understand I do not mean to denigrate your efforts, but WP works on WP:CONSENSUS. From the limited amount of your edits I have overseen, you have not been paying enough attention to others' citing of reliable WP:Sources, and, to a degree, you appear to have been overemphasising 'Ethiopianness' of articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting any nationstate's agenda in any way. What we work on is what is in the WP:Reliable Sources. Please be more willing to listen to other editors, and Assume Good Faith. Please do not hold up improvements to articles when you are the solo person resisting changes. Please also remember that I'm here at any time to listen to your queries and clarifications, and I'm keen to help grow your skills to make this a better encyclopedia. Best wishes - feel free to react or disagree, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I like transparent discussion. Not clear for me when you say "overemphasising 'Ethiopianness'", it would be great if you could please clarify on that. I just want people to get complete and balanced information. As said, I just do not want people to get the impression that their tribe or the political party they support did not commit crimes while others did. If you see Ifat Sultanate article, right now it's perfect because it talks about stories from all sides. I think, it's not for us wikipedia editors to judge but we will present the facts (preferably toned down) based on reliable sources and it's up to readers to take which ever they want. The article, before, draws the picture that Christians are bad people who calls Muslims as "enemies of the Lord" and that their primary job is just to chase Muslim sultans and to kill [7], while no mention that the Muslims were fighting to be ruler of Horn of Africa and convert all people in the area to Islam. Also no mention on Christians appointing Muslim Sultans and were preserving the Muslim states in the region as it is (not destroying their states) so that they rule with their islamic law, speak with what ever language they want and follow which ever culture be it Arabic or indigenous. I am not trying to be combative but I do not think saying stories from all sides should be toned down and included is "overemphasizing 'Ethiopianness'". Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My point is when you said '..Instead of making ethnigroup articles into just about slavery and war related history we could just move those kind of stories to like "Slavery in Ethiopia" or "Warfare in Ethiopia" articles.' These should be related to the ethnic groups they deal with instead of necessarily the Ethiopian articles; Ethiopia may not have existed at the time the events took place. Also, why do you believe events/"stories" from all sides should be toned down? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If no censor then I think stories from all sides should be treated equally based on NPOV. Right now in the article there is no mention of the Oromo inter-tribal fighting and how they also fight with their neighbors while these reliable sources say these [8][9][10]. Weather the region was peacful or full of war we should not censor history and let people assume that the region has been peacful before 20th century. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs), would you like to comment on the sources raised by EthiopianHabesha about Oromo inter-tribal fighting and fighting with their neighbours? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I do not want to fight over this issue with Ms Sarah, I will make a proposal on this and other unbalanced stories in the articles talkpage and we will discuss about it. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is my talkpage and I would like her opinion. Can you explain why you continue to use the term 'stories'? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Stories as in "unbalanced stories" [11]? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: The article already mentions intra-Oromo and inter-ethnic group conflicts and enslavement. Several times, with phrases such as "pastoralist Oromo enslaved settled Oromo", waves of wars and struggle between the groups, Oromo rulers selling Oromo slaves, etc. Since EthiopianHabesha is going in circles with their arguments, let me explain this a bit more: We face two challenges in Oromo people, Amhara people, Somalis and other Horn of Africa related articles. One of relative balance (NPOV), and another of verifying the context (WP:V-RS). By relative balance, we mean "representing fairly proportionately"; in other words, the discussion of Muslim Oromo vs Christian Oromo vs Pagan Oromo vs etc infighting should not unfairly dominate or be emphasized in the article if Amhara-Oromo and Somali-Oromo and other wars were more or equally significant. By verifying the context, we mean these articles are sensitive topics, and reading the context in several reliable scholarly sources is important. We just added Somali-Oromo part. More to come. We also need to keep article size in mind (I really want to see culture and society section expanded, because there is a lot more to beautiful Ethiopia/Oromo/Amhara/etc, and Africa in general, than wars and slavery). WP:NOTFINISHED, as you put it above, you are spot on. EthiopianHabesha: please read Buckshot06's comments carefully, not some predisposed self script. Frankly, there is not much more to explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I am into describing every ethnicgroups in positive light. As you said Oromos do have interesting cultures and languages that other neighbouring people be it Amhara or the rest of the world can learn from and adopt. Oromos cultures is also my culture and also all Ethiopians culture as well as African culture. There are also many Oromos who made differences in Science and all other aspects of life. But if you think it's important to add war and slave related history then we have to treat everyone equally. All humans dead for what ever reason (for wrong or for right) are equal and it should be known why they died. Oromos do have interesting cultures but there were also some bad and terrifying cultures in the past that people should know about. Please note that many have died in the past as result of bad tradition (ritual) and we do not just censor that and just document about "Arsi mutilation". Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: If you want to propose with explaination why Arsi mutilation-related sentences be deleted from Oromo people article, or that Other tribes/ Amhara/ Adal/ others be also added, do so on the article's talk page. With WP:RS and page numbers. Others and you have been edit warring about that text. Please note that the sources you mention should explicitly state and conclude what you are alleging. No WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, which is a big persistent issue with your editing, and something you again with Milkias and Giyorgis sources today. I will now restart ignoring you on the talk pages unless you make a good new point that you haven't made before. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I have tried to dicsuss with you politely and if you could respect me and try to lesson to me then we are doing good for what wikipedia stands for. I am from Horn of Africa, giving me more advantage to understand the politics of the region because I follow news related to the region, and also because I interact with people from the region. First of all, the sources used to support "Arsi mutilation", "third of the population died", "Millions killed" and "mass killings" are clearly biased and DID NOT say precisely X people died or mutilated on this side while Y people died and mutilated on the opposing side. Secondly, they were all written by Oromo writers (whom are known as supporting Oromo Liberation Front). Thirdly, no other neutral European scholar document about these, I mean no source that looks like unbiased did say that. After considering all these factors if you still support the inclusion of these controversial claims then you might need to consider the inclusion of all the sources I listed under Final Proposal which almost all are written by neutral European writers, and their work looks unbiased, and the way the writers present the history is with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, you cannot write off all the Oromo sources simply because they are written by Oromo writers. Think of it around this way; would we refuse to use all sources emitting from the central Ethiopian government/Addis Ababa simply because they were central government? To refuse to use Oromo sources breaches WP:NPOV. We must examine the sources, compare them to each other, and then weave them together into framework. Otherwise we are not following NPOV. European authors are more removed, yes, but in doing so they also don't have so much access to information.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot, issue is not just because the writers are Oromo but the way the history is presented in the sources and because no other neutral (writers from outside the region) well known historians writing about it. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

But we could say the same thing about the 'way the history is presented in the sources' relating to any other ethnic group or source worldwide -- they show subjectivity. We're all subjective. No human is completely objective. Not a valid argument, I'm afraid. Neither is saying 'neutral = outside the region' because outside writers could be biased either way as well. Thirdly, and to repeat, European writers simply might not have access to the same sources, thus not being able to write about the same events. I am beginning to be seriously concerned regarding your adherence to WP:NPOV -- you appear to be somewhat biased *against* the Oromo. Would you like to comment? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 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 looks at submarine warfare 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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Operation Red Hat

A tag has been placed on Operation Red Hat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Deletion Reason #5 Scaled down FORK of draft being re-developed in the sandbox of editor JohnVR4

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Operation Red Hat

A tag has been placed on Operation Red Hat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Deletion Reason #5 Scaled down FORK taken from draft already being re-developed in the sandbox of editor JohnVR4

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

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

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Borisoglebsk (air base)

added a link pointing to Il-14

Petrovsk (air base)

added a link pointing to Il-14

United States Central Command

added a link pointing to Battle of Mogadishu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands

Your recent edits inserting, "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki were also launched from Okinawa." and substituting alleged incidents and accidents with "nuclear accidents" , while well intended, inserted falsehoods into a brand new article that has not even been reviewed. Please understand that I am not going to count reverting these obvious errors in 3RR. Also, your edits were made only 5 minutes after my last edit and only one hour after the creation of the article. If you have a concern or issue, please bring it to the talk page-- but please wait for the initial review and removal of the new unreviewed article tag.

Please verify sources. I have explained to you repeatedly (including this week) that this is a requirement to edit on Wikipedia. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies; of course the missions were launched from Tinian. Please find a way to make your headings not long and obtuse. My edits WERE the initial review. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it appropriate to remove the tag?

I put back two lines that I hope you can live with and re-worded the lede for your review. The atomic age and sputtering to a stop I believe is from one of our sources but I can't seem to spot which one it came from at the moment. Remember that the nuke incidents, most or all, are mostly alleged as of this date and most all are disputed. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands Comment edit war warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Discuss on talk page. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Your addition to 10th Regional Support Group has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please also note that legal action may be taken for severe copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Terrorist threat to nuclear weapons in Japan

moved from My talk page: Apparent POV section to Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972 section. Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV Johnvr4 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan

I see you moved the page but the RM is still open .

Am I missing something? And either way, can I help? Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The rationale has been fulfilled now; I just don't know how to close an RM. Can you close it? Are you interested in discussing the subject -- this subject/article needs more eyes on it.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 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)

342nd Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

Hey, Buckshot. I put up a page for the 341st Rifle Division tonight, and I'd like to turn to the 342nd next, and then to the 121st Guards Rifle Division which formed from the 1st formation of the 342nd. At present, the 342nd redirects to 33rd Motor Rifle Division. Is there any way to abolish this redirect so a full article to the 342nd can be written, with a link to the later 33rd Motor Rifle? I'm asking as you created the page and have had a lot of input on it since.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25

I ask you to Write there. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

new Soviet army units articles

Hello, Buckshot06. Today, I have created articles for 12 corps units of the Soviet army. All of these took part in the invasion of Poland and are included in the order of battle. Can you and the others in the red army wiki team expand on these? The 16th Rifle Corps in particular has different subordinate units in 1939 (2nd and 100th div.) and 1941 (5th, 33rd, 188th div.). I put this in my 2nd edit of that article. Zee money (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I also have one other request for the Red Army editors group. The 15th Rifle Division has a list of commanders which has enabled me to create new Wikipedia articles for them. Most of the subjects of my Soviet military related articles perished in the Great Purge of the late 1930s. Their name appears to be appear only once or twice (sometimes, not at all) outside their own articles. It would be convenient for all the existing division, corps and army units to have a list of its commanders. Also, I think it is best for military district commanders lists (some start at 1945) to be extended to the civil war era. Zee money (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Zee Money. The appropriate response, though it may be a little harsh, is WP:SOFIXIT - be bold, get in there, and start. We have a few people interested, but we cannot compel people to work on articles. Ryan.opel, for example, has taken a break in the last little while. User:W. B. Wilson does not do much editing here at all now. Lead the way, though, and people will follow. I am about to give you a barnstar for your new cavalry corps articles, but please make sure in future that when you create an article, make sure it has at least one reference, online or offline as appropriate. WP:V is very important. niehorster.org is a good site, plus the Combat composition of the Soviet Army links. Again, thanks for your hard work, though. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Status of (Soviet Union) in RD article titles

Hey, Buckshot. I've been watching Kges advancing like a tank army through the 200-series Red Army RDs, which I sincerely applaud, and have told him so. But I have noticed that he is leaving out the (Soviet Union) subtitle in the article titles. I realize that the various users have never been completely consistent on this, but what I can say is that I've left a lot of red links in my work that include the subtitle, on your direction some years ago, and there's going to be a fair bit of fixing to do to turn these into blue links. Has there been a change in direction on this matter? Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey @User:Kges1901 your presence is kindly requested. Both of you, people are sometimes going to link without the (Soviet Union) and sometimes with it. There are links all over Wiki that could go to any particular division - towns, people, etc. Please, go with whatever variation you like, but MAKE SURE THE OTHER ONE EXISTS AS A REDIRECT - that has been my policy. You will note that User:Lineagegeek and his USAF comrades link enormous numbers of varying unit titles to make sure that all links reach the right page, but with the right title for the time period in question. With 520-plus articles, we cannot necessarily enforce standardisation. Kges1901, your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that leaving out the disambiguator is ok as long as the disambiguated title with (Soviet Union) is linked, as the only army with rifle divisions is the Red Army. The Imperial Army had rifle divisions, but as you can see from the current articles, they had names like "1st Turkestan Rifle Division" or "11th Siberian Rifle Division." The only issue with this is that many of the Civil War rifle divisions disbanded before the Soviet Union existed, and I've been thinking of using (RSFSR) as a disambiguator when I eventually create those articles. Kges1901 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

We're on the same page then. Kges1901, would you please consider checking your 200-series articles to make sure they all have a (Soviet Union)? I'll happily do 200-250, maybe Kges you could do 251-299.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

When I created the articles, I also created redirects with (Soviet Union) for the articles which had incoming links using that title. I didn't create redirects for articles that had no incoming links using the title with the disambiguator. Kges1901 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That is the point - people may create links with or without the disambiguator, so we need to preemptively create both. Otherwise severe gaps may open up in time. I'm willing to do a big chunk of this, because otherwise significant problems may eventuate in the long term, but I would appreciate some help. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

21st Air Defence Corps

added links pointing to Polyarnyy, Olenegorsk and Afrikanda

4th Air and Air Defence Forces Command

added a link pointing to Erebuni

Naval Station Mayport

added a link pointing to Atlantic Fleet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 2 May 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)

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)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Admiral Ferry Crew ?

No dude its "Admiralty" as in a body not Admiral as in a person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.214.46 (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but when you're grappling with VisualEdit sometimes you overlook things. And you are always welcome - indeed encouraged - to fix it yourself (WP:SOFIXIT). Buckshot06 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

yes thanks for changing it back i thought i was logged in when i left that --Dixon hill (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

sure but i dont like just reverting an edit without finding out why it was changed or hear the argument why you never know i could be wrong (but i am not i am EX RNXS)hence i am editing it ,but thanks for the quick response...its appreciated--Dixon hill (talk) 10:27, 1 July 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)

Remaining US Army COA pages

Do you plan to put the remaining pages here up for AfD, since you deleted the armor and cavalry regiments gallery? Kges1901 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, minus the AMEDD coat of arms description page. Not a high priority though. Feel free to put up a mass AfD should you feel like it. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that I'll focus on making the commons galleries work properly with links before I nominate the remaining COA pages for deletion. Meanwhile, I will receive Sawicki's cavalry regiments book via interlibrary loan in about a week or so, as well as Glantz's 2nd volume of Barbarossa Derailed, so this summer I will attempt to get the armored regiments list to at least BL-class and improve the articles on the Yelnya Offensive and related units/people. What information do you think we should include in each armored regiment entry on the list?Kges1901 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on 2nd Fighter Division (People's Republic of China)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 11 years ago...

Hey, Buckshot06. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 11:55, 5 August 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)

August 2017

Your addition to Royal Army Medical Corps has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

94th Cavalry/94th Armor

Do you think it is likely that a consolidation between the 94th Armor and 94th Cavalry occurred in 1972? 1st Squadron, 94th Cav was at Duluth prior to 1972 per Sawicki, and 1st Battalion, 94th Armor was probably at Hibbing per Pope & Kondratiuk. A consolidation would account for the transfer of the heraldry shown on the TIOH website. Kges1901 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Kges1901 Not very clear, is it? I read para (h) on page 3 of NG AR 870-5 as supporting what you say, but there's no clear answer that I can see.

Suggest consulting User talk:VilePig#Numbered Combat Aviation Brigades, and the next section down, as I believe CMH is the final authority on lineages. Also note however that AR 870-5 (1994) para (n) on page 4 says non-standard lineage issues are to be determined between the state, NGB, and CMH. To get a proper answer, you will have to do some WP:OR, then get an OTRS ticket to upload a document showing what actually happened, from the state or CMH, probably. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I emailed the Minnesota NG's history POC, who helpfully uploaded all the lineage documents that they have there onto their website. Unfortunately, it looks like nobody bothered to reconcile or update the lineages for the 94th Cav and 94th Armor, although it looks like some sort of a merger happened based on comparing the campaign participation credit of the two units. Kges1901 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's good of them. Do not accept that 94th Cavalry lineage as the final word - it hasn't been properly updated (though I doubt I need to remind you of that). Just as long as we go with the general rule that there's only one regiment, which flips designations back and forth according to Army need, we're fine. Thankyou for initiating the question - we're a little clearer on things now!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I did some searching and found that the Minnesota NG command historian, Daniel Ewer, edits wikipedia under his real name (and he's recently been active). Kges1901 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Great!! Well suggest you leave a polite note at his talkpage asking if he'd kindly stop by here and guide us.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your frequent words of encouragement. Indy beetle (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

49th Guards Rifle division

Dear Buckshot06! Thank you for your active participation in the discussion. But according to Soviet sources, it was the 49 GRDs that met with the American allies. Your friend and товарищ forever! Георгий Палкин (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah-ha!! Yes, there were different meetings at different times. The first meeting, meeting in a different corps/army area, formal meeting by senior officers, etc. If we do some searching, we can add data to both en-49th Guards Rifle Division and ru-49 GRD. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean the first meeting (Sorry for my bad English, let's talk in Russian). The meeting of Allied soldiers is an event that is reflected in the regimental (divisional) reports. Короче как у Вас с русским? Я просто устал переводить. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Георгий Палкин (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Георгий Палкин (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Tovarishch, vodku p'yosh? Георгий Палкин (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My Russian is limited to reading and some speaking. I could be accused of being nekulturny, perhaps. I'm sorry. I'm happy for you to continue to chat in Russian, of course, should you wish; I use G-Translate all the time to work through things and to check things on soldat.ru. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I was joking, I'm sorry! Just got the idea that suddenly you know Russian better than I'm English. Soldat.ru is a good site, but I'm interested in English sources. Георгий Палкин (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just fine. Kges1901 and I can hunt down stuff on the en-Internet, and, in some cases, in hardcopy libraries in various places. Just tell us exactly what you're looking for - and that seems to be clear? - the U.S. awards given to Soviet soldiers of the 49th GRD? And thanks very much for that article by the way!! Very helpful!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Buckshot06! If possible, you are looking at the Kges1901 page! (As I understand you are friends and do you have general ineterses?) The only thing you seemed to me more sociable and юморным (I do not know how to say it correctly in English, (cheerful, playful, fervent)). And I think you are younger Kges1901? Георгий Палкин (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Being BOLD

Hello Buckshot. I would've sent this message sooner but school just started back up this week and I've been preoccupied. I just wanted to let you know that if you find any glaring mistakes in my drafts feel free to be WP:BOLD and make the complete edit yourself. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Hi Buckshot I don't normally request assistance but I have reached an impasse following a discussion here: Talk:William of Wrotham it started over a link I added from his article to the Clerk of the Acts article I inserted, two editors insisted there was no connection at all between Wrotham as Keeper of the Kings Ports and Galleys and the Clerk of the Acts, and admit I went a bit overboard in trying to explain myself, however after taking deep breath I found more recent sources that support Michael Oppenheim's theory about the development of the post through the centuries. At the moment I am going round in circles would you mind taking a look and suggest any solutions much appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 08:56, 3 September 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)

USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

ICYMI I responded to the section that you created on the talk page in relation to the content dispute. Your response to it (if at all possible) would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 16:30, 20 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)

150th SOW

Apologies for the header change. I was attempting to follow what appeared to be Lineagegeek's standard formatting. Was there any source for the lineage information on the original article (and what other sources did the original deleted article have)? Kges1901 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I copied all the references attached in the lineage section (one) over. 150 FG (AD) is unreferenced. Various NM ANG history pages support some of the other dates. I've now copied virtually all the other sources into the ext links section. There's no consolidated, authoritative source for ANG lineage available online, seemingly because ANG operates at a state level. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:57, 29 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)

2nd Red Banner Army

Can you add page numbers from Stumbling Colossus to whatever information remains from Glantz in the 2nd Red Banner Army article? I am currently trying to get it to B-class. Kges1901 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I hear you Kges1901. I only have about three chapters - I'll see what I can do. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Liberian election

Could you possibly reference this addition, particularly as it has a direct quote in it. Cheers, Number 57 21:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have specifically stated the reference - the EU EOM Preliminary Statement, issued 12 October 2017. However, what I think you might be looking for is a link. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was looking for a WP:Reference in the form of an inline citation, which you must be aware is a requirement for direct quotes. Thanks for providing it though. Number 57 21:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, one learns a new thing every day - thanks! Next time I'll know!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

About nothing

Dear Buckshot06! How are you? We have not spoken in the wiki for a long time. If you have time write to me. I'm glad to discuss with You. Георгий Палкин (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Travis Air Force Base

Hello Buckshot06,

Losing this article damages the encyclopedia. Is it possible to restore it to the version before copyvios were added, or to remove the copyvios from the most recent version? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for restoring the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 22 October 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)

Machine translation

Could you please not use machine translation, as you did on 54th Group Army, 67th Group Army, etc.? A lot of the stuff you added is nonsense. Please see WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Thanks. -Zanhe (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Zanhe. The other option is not to translate at all; my Mandarin is limited to "hello" and "thankyou". Buckshot06 (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning them up. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think there's a problem using machine translation, you just have to leave it in a usable form. Any mess I've made I'm quite happy to clean up - just alert me that it's been left half-done and I will fix it. I'll do 67th Group Army within a week. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Liberian military ranks

The Liberian military ranks are laid out in the Defence Act of 2008 ( http://www.vertic.org/media/National%20Legislation/Liberia/LR_Defense%20Act%20of%202008.pdf ), you can then see the rank of Command Sergeant Major on the Liberian Gov's Ministry of National Defence website ( http://mod.gov.lr/the-forces/the-forces-command-sergeant-major/ ) Cdjp1 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If you check the Liberia Armed Forces article, I added the citation before you replied to my talk page. Cdjp1 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whiteman AFB

Good afternoon Buckshot;

I came to the Whiteman AFB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteman_Air_Force_Base) , to find it was nothing but a big possible Copyright violation banner, which appears to be your edit. The last revision before that, was a user called PrimeBot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PrimeBOT), who appears to have updated ISBN #s with links (I could be wrong, but the edits appeared to have something to do with the ISBN #s of two references, and the Bot's page lists it as replacing magic links with templates).

Please let me know if there was a reason the entire article was removed for the (C) banner, or if perhaps I'm reading the revision history wrong, and it was the Bot that got a little zealous; before I revert the article back to it's most recent complete incarnation, with a reference to the copyrighted content (if you know/remember what content may have been infringing).

Thanks! 45.59.206.135 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Are you not aware of Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819? Whiteman is listed on the first page of the tens of pages of copyvios (5000 plus in total). Bwmoll3 was a largescale copyright violator from offline sources (look at the top of User talk:Bwmoll3). The procedural page is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 November 17. I've had to delete several air base and USAF wing articles completely. Others have been recreated by others coming after me. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Those copyvio deletions

Ouch. It looks like some of the offline sources should be PD too, based on their publishers, but err on the side of caution and all that. That said my reason for coming here is that some of the nuked content seems to have been in the past spun out to other articles - Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport had used chunks of the deleted material from Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station for instance. Some of it was cited there, so I left it, while the bits there that weren't cited I rewrote to clear things up. Just a heads-up that that's a land mine to watch out for in this issue, I guess. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of PD-USGOV sources, but the sources that were originally found by the original 20130819 hunters were books like "The Mighty Eighth" etc - commercially published works, not from any U.S. Air Force / U.S. Govt source. They're not listed on the articles - and the vanilla sources like that were added by Bwmoll3 *later* to try and cover things up (look at the page histories). Therefore we have to keep whacking the articles. Not that I like it, but I've been pretty selective so far - one could practically delete any U.S. Air Force base or unit article, because he edited around 5,000 (!!) articles or so!! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Aaaah, that explains it. It's sad how some people are! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The really sad thing is that if he had just referenced where he got the data from, we could have rewritten it; now on a strict reading we have to do mass deletes... Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Buckshot06. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allied Command Europe Mobile Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 7 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Western Hemisphere Group

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.

A tag has been placed on Western Hemisphere Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0005057.A1.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've issued you four warnings for copyright violations in the past year. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, my apologies. The CNA source was not PD-USG as I had thought. I'm just about to reduce the article to a bare stub. Anyway thanks for lowering the boom - I've clearly gotten careless at times. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 9 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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Next-Generation Bomber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air Staff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 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)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Panzer ace - tags

Hi Buckshot06 - the opposing viewpoints have been removed from this page, leaving the article not complying with WP:Bal. Until this is done, I have put tags on it to indicate that it is a problem article. It would be great if you could please leave the tags on while the situation is being discussed on the talk page? Personally, its bad enough that the opposing viewpoints have been removed, but to not even have an indicator that the article is problematic is not great for the user. The current problem with the page is that some wikipedians are selectively attacking the authors that have the viewpoint that they oppose, and so leaving no references and content for that viewpoint. I'm just trying to get an article that has all viewpoints represented - Thanks very much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D comments please? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that there's an active dispute on the talk page, involving multiple editors, a tag does seem appropriate. I don't think we need both tags though, as they cover much the same issue - I'd suggest retaining the 'undue weight' tag, but the other one is also relevant. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06 and Nick-D. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

1st Brigade Combat Team GAR

1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello can you explain your revert edit on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari,_Somalia.

You have reverted my edit, and i don't intend on engaging in an edit war, the source i have presented to justify my edit is very reliable and sound, and it matches the changes that i made. Can you explain the reason you reverted this article[12]. Thanks CabuuwaaqWanaag (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi - Very many thanks for the barnstar! Dormskirk (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Task Force 57, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Task Force 72 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

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 tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine 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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

70th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade

I think a better solution would be to disambiguate by country, for example 70th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade (Soviet Union), since like the 90th Guards Tank Division these units have separate lineages and nothing in common except for a name. Enough information is available for the Afghan War unit to have a separate article, but I just have not had the time to add it. IMO the Russian unit is better off as a redirect. Kges1901 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You've done all the hard yards (=Kiwi slang, hard work) on these articles. I think the 70th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade (Russia) redirect should be established, but apart from that, the decisions are yours. Cheers and vmt for your continuing hard work. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of some of Bwmoll3's pages

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I seem to be recreating some of the pages deleted as part of the CCI into Bwmoll3, namely Biggs Army Airfield and Naval Air Station Albany, please feel free to review and comment as necessary. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Albany looks good Mztourist, thanks!! Please remove the categories, like I have done, that don't match the base's name, and create a redirect if necessary, plus adding the Category:Military installations established in 1967 or whatever, using the date that the installation was named = the same name as the article title. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

45th Reconnaissance Squadron

I've recently been doing a sources update for 45th Reconnaissance Squadron. In addition to the usual dead AFHRA link, there was a lot of other stuff -- cited sources not supporting statements, links to Amazon sale pages instead of work, wrong author names, unlisted editors, etc.) I've corrrected or tagged most of these, but since you've been going over Mr. Moll's copyvuis, his addition of material cited to globalsecurity.com (see my comments on Talk:45th Reconnaissance Squadron). It would appear that there's a bit of cut and paste from that web site, and I can't verify the further attribution to the Offutt AFB Office of History (which would put the material in the public domain). --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything you can't directly source, we need to strip down and remove. Yes, he misattributed data at globalsecurity.org to official sites many, many times. Sorry, you're going to have to pare the 45 RS article right down to the nubs. Happy to help should you wish. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much done with it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for 313th Air Expeditionary Wing

An article that you have been involved in editing—313th Air Expeditionary Wing—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marching regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temporary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of French Air Force aircraft squadrons, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Echelon and Escadre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FAR for Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

I have nominated Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Indy beetle (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Air Expeditionary units of the United States Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFCENT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

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 Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Indef'd IP

Just wondering if you meant to indefinitely block 71.193.182.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? AFAICT there haven't been any contribs or filter logs in years. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the contributions were unhelpful in the extreme - did not wish the disruptive WP:CENSORSHIP of publicly available information to continue. "Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic." But we could cut it off after five years or so I suppose - people move house etc.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Again wrong!

What is with the info? I personally have evidence for the equipment and could have not found any you resources as they are in other languages. Moldova has spent a couple million on military in 2016 and most numbers went up. The current info is old just like the airforce. Please fix and put everything as it was. I can give you the evidence but it will have to be in Russian or Romanian... www.army.md/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McMBPvLJn6I https://www.romaniatv.net/armata-republicii-moldova-va-fi-moder... www.dw.com/ro/ministrul-moldovean-al...irită.../a-19107002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraTank.MD (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You must use WP:RELIABLE sources. If the information IS SAID to come from the IISS Military Balance 2010, it MUST come from the IISS Military Balance 2010. If you use Romanian and Russian sources, that is fine, but every equipment number you give must have an individual source, from a webpage or link or site, that can be followed back to WP:VERIFY the data is correct.

WP:VERIFY says that "other people using the encyclopedia [must be able to] check that the information comes from a reliable source." That is WP:POLICY which you must conform with.

If you do not do this, you will be eventually blocked completely - I am not very interested in giving you exemptions from the rules right now!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

question

Hey, just curious... do you do any 'mopping' at the 3RRNB? Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability query on current US Army division commander

Do you think that Draft:Joseph M. Martin is notable, since he is a major general and current commander of the 1st Infantry Division? This is despite the draft being poorly written and formatted. Kges1901 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable as a major general and land commander CJTF-OIR (commanding in combat as a major general). Two ticks for notability, yes. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:OJOM

You might consider removing TPA also. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, he'll probably give good reason in a few :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked him for what I consider to be good and sufficient reasons. I *cannot* take away his right to appeal; that would make me judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1 Group badge.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1 Group badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2 Group badge.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2 Group badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IP unblocked

About a month ago, you indefinitely blocked an IP, 71.193.182.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I assume this was in error, especially since as far as I can see the address has no live or deleted edits since 2013, and has nothing in the edit filter. Maybe you came upon their edits in the history of 4th Cavalry Brigade (United States) and misread the dates? At any rate, I've unblocked the address, but please let me know if there was a good reason for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Earls Colne Airfield - Deletion

Hi, I've noticed you've recently deleted the page 'Earls Colne Airfield', and I was just wondering why? I've not been able to find records of any discussion etc. 07Alpha55 (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Bwmoll3 was a prolific contributor, and prolific copyright infringer from offline sources. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. Most USAAF and USAF associated base and unit pages have potential copyright violations in them. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, would there be any problem if I started the page again from blank using valid sources? 07Alpha55 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. That's why I didn't delete the talk page (though it now appears somebody carefully cleaned up after me!). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

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 a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic 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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

31st Infantry Division (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Northport

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

added a link pointing to Northport

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Almaden Air Force Station

Howdy. I see you deleted the article Almaden Air Force Station for copyright violation. No problem there. However, it's a prominent landmark not far from me, and I'd like to create a non-infringing article. Would you please userfy that article, and its talk page for me, so I can see what it contained and what references it used, so that I can create a non-infringing version?

I will immediately blank it (or you can, if you prefer). When I'm done, I'll ask for the range of edits that contain infringing material (likely everything starting with Bwmoll3's first edit) to be revdeled, retaining the history log in order to comply with the CC-BY attribution requirement with respect to any other editors.

Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have placed the article's last revision before Bwmoll3's first edit to it, in your sandbox. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; but can I get the final version, so I have any edits made by non-Bwmoll3 editors? If not, why don't we just restore the article to the pre-Bwmoll3 state instead of deleting? TJRC (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I've rechecked the guidelines; I should have undeleted it and moved it to a nominated userpage. Establish a redlink userpage in your userspace and then I can move the page there. We can then go through revdel/history log process. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military of Mauritania Query

Hi Buckshot06, I am really new at this, so my sincerest apologies if I have got it horribly wrong. I would love to see the Military Intelligence Summary - Africa South of the Sahara, DDB > 2680-104-85, ICOD 15 October 1984, you mention on the Military of Mauritania article. If you could post it online, it would be great. Best Wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanlynch22 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would love to see it on line too!! It was delivered hardcopy, in a box, hundreds of pages long!! Easiest for you to request it yourself under FOIA from DIA. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06,

             Many thanks for Reply, I did FOIA from DIA for other Summaries, but I am from Ireland and apparently it can take two to three years to process.  Is there any chance that yours could be copied and posted. I know it is a lot to ask, but I find the material fascinating.  Could you give me an email address or something to discuss postage etc? All the Best.Brendanlynch22 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

To correspond with any wikipedian that allows it, you need the "email this user" accessible via the side of my/the talk page. Yes, they take years - but this one is already declassified, and was released to a New Zealander. You could (a) Write their FOIA office a polite note, requesting another copy of this already declassified document (and there are other similar ones already on the FOIA Africa page for later in the 1980s)-might take a month or two, or (b) e-mail me. I may not be in a position to help you, however. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Many Thanks, Will try A first.Brendanlynch22 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This time, they may be able to give you a copy in PDF - you can specifically ask for that. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 3rd Infantry Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camp Howze (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

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 bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron 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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Escadron de Chasse 2/30 Normandie-Niemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escadron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

246th Field Artillery

I welcome your updating of the 246th Coast Artillery's lineage to its later form as the 246th Field Artillery, but what is your source? While researching the article, I tried to find information on the 246th FA online, but couldn't find anything more than a few unit insignia for sale. Most of your information is not cited. Did it all come from your artillery lineage/CMH source? RobDuch (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You didn't find CMH 60-11, 2010, in two volumes? That's the source; most of the lineages have been updated to 1987 at least. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Do consider searching for the source as cited next time - "CMH 60-11" should have done it. However, I've added a direct link to the artillery lineages volumes in their 2010 edition. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

One development I haven't fully cited, because the data isn't fully clear, is the disbandment of the regiment in 2005 [13]. It appears the 246th FA was disbanded, and any Danville Artillery lineage continues only through the 429th Support Battalion. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the prompt reply. I'm sure the CMH pub will come in handy for me in the future. RobDuch (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

About nothing ago

Dear Buckshot06 howe are You? Very sorry that did not write to you for a long time. Георгий Палкин (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Military base categorisation

Hi. I wonder why you've been re-categorising articles from Category:Closed facilities of the United States Air Force to Category:Bases of the United States Air Force, etc. (in Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, for example). I've reverted the changes for now, but if there's something inaccurate with categorising them as "closed" please let us know. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You weren't aware of this long-standing precedent? See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_4#Category:Facilities_of_the_United_States_Air_Force_slated_for_closure, back seven years ago now. Categorisation by former status is discouraged by Milhist ("temporal separation categories" as it was put at the discussion); I believe it may be connected to avoidance of WP:RECENTISM. What we now do is place them in the appropriate installation/country category, and indicate closed, if necessary, by the addition of the appropriate subcategory of Category:Military installations by date of closure, which allows one to get a much quicker read via the categories as to when installations were closed. Does that explain what the practice is now? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware. I assume it's a practice specific to MILHIST, since there are otherwise plenty of former and defunct categories. In this specific case though (active Thai bases which previously also served the USAF), categorising them equally as Thai and US facilities will only confuse the reader. They are now under Category:Closed facilities of the United States Air Force in Thailand, which I think is a meaningful grouping that deserves to be categorised on its own, but could be renamed to something specific to Vietnam, which will also avoid the former status issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018

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 coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Tuy Hoa Air Base

Please reconsider your wholesale deletion of this page. It is an important page to have and I don't wish to have to recreate the whole thing as I did with Da Nang Air Base. Please reinstate the page with the copyvios identified and I will clean it up. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to reinstate the page, but all you will get, practically, is the infobox. Bear in mind also that deleting the page wipes out completely any possibility of the copyvio content being resurrected. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That really means starting from scratch, which frankly isn't very useful to Wikipedia as a whole. In future if you plan to delete any Vietnam War related pages I request that you message me first so I can try to do a cleanup without having to start from the beginning as I did with Da Nang Air Base and will have to do here. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a whole has to remain in compliance with United States copyright law, and remaining in compliance with the law has been repeatedly decided as more important than unsourced, unverified, content. Put it this way - would you like the entire site to disappear, or single pages? What I suggest, should you be interested in keeping the airbase articles covering South Vietnam (for some reason, of the thousands of articles he tainted, Category:United States military bases of the Vietnam War includes quite a few) that I've been occasionally checking, is that you start making sure that every paragraph is sourced. My method is when I see a large article filled with generally obscure USAF facts, that I go to the history section and see how much it has been written by Bwmoll3. If it's 80%+ his work, all the text gets deleted- because it's almost certainly all copyvio from the books listed at the bottom!! So start citing and rewriting the articles, and they'll be less likely to be deleted. Revdel'd, maybe, but not deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Realistically who is going to file a copyright claim against Wikipedia and what would be the outcome? Only the removal of the offending pages, not the entire site. My concern is that properly sourced information shouldn't get tossed along with copyvio information and it is easier to source references and rewrite when you can identify the relevant units rather than having to start all over from scratch. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am through debating the merits of copyright with you - the only thing that's important is that we are legally required to comply, and you appear to be nearly willing to ignore that requirement. WE MUST COMPLY - that's the end of it. I only regard sentences followed by citations as properly sourced. Anything else, due to the reputation Bwmoll3 gained, I'm quite willing to biff. There's little point in repeating your arguments; I've heard and understood them, but our copyright position unfortunately overrides them. However, if you want to get ahead of the problem, suggest you start referencing Cam Ranh Air Base, Kadena Air Base, Korat, Phan Rang, Phu Cat, Pleiku, Takhli, Tan Son Nhut, U-Tapao, and Udorn, all of which on a cursory inspection bear signs of being written by Bwmoll3 and all of which I could delete right now on that basis. That's the ones I pick out of the above category list as being major USAF bases; there may be others. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And there's the problem, on my quick count at least 50 other editors have contributed to the Cam Ranh Air Base page, including both you and me, and so it is not appropriate for you to just decide that the whole page is copyvio and should be deleted solely because Bwmoll3 wrote a lot of it. I'm not "debating the merits of copyright with you", I am asking you to be more discerning of what you toss rather than the broad-brush approach that you seem to be taking. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to my last comment, I created/recreated Phù Cát Air Base Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that you also deleted Nha Trang Air Base on 2 May, please reinstate it Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Restored Nha Trang as you requested. I carefully checked the article, comparing the last text Bwmoll3 added with the final text, and twice for references, and as a result, there was virtually no text that wasn't written by him (as opposed to being changed in small ways by others later), and there were no references. I have however kept, though it's probably technically delete-able, the first definition paragraph. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You restored a skeleton, not the article which I now have to rewrite from scratch. I have to ask, do you actually bother checking for specific copyvios or do you just delete based on the fact that it was written by Bwmoll? Because based solely on my recent reads of Vietnam air bases a lot of the supposed "copyvios" have been copied from US Government sources which by definition isn't a breach of copyright. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The copyright investigation starts at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819. It goes on for ten plus pages, listing his infringements. The CCI says "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation and so all of the below listed contributions may be removed indiscriminately." I am acting in full conformity with that rule and I am tired of you attacking me for doing my job as an admin. I do not expect to be criticised again for acting in full confirmity with the rules that keep the site legal. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read the rules and I don't agree with your approach of deleting entire pages as a way of "removing [Bwmoll's edits] indiscriminately" as this ignores all intervening edits. I intend to raise this for discussion on the Milhist and Aviation boards because I don't think you should delete entire pages like this again without a proper copyvio check in each case. Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have have posted the pages here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages and here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Military bases of the Vietnam War

Please explain why are you removing Military Bases of the Vietnam War from VPAF Base pages? They do not "happily sit under a DRV military installations subcat" The whole purpose of the category is to have a comprehensive view of all military bases used by all parties in the Vietnam War.Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Will you answer me or are you just going to go through and change cats everywhere?Mztourist (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been changing and creating categories across a wide range of military articles for the last eight or ten years. I have now created a missing category, for the installations of the DRV and SRV's air force, and I will continue to change and amend the categories for armed forces and military installations as the number of articles grow. I have, in deference to your wishes, added Category:Military bases of the Vietnam War to Category:Installations of the Vietnam People's Air Force. Category:Military bases of the Vietnam War is ridiculously large and non-specific, and needs to be broken down into categories that can also fit within RVNAF, U.S. armed forces, Thai, and PAVN category trees. I will continue to do that. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

None of the RVNAF bases were VPAF bases during the Vietnam War except for perhaps during a few months in 1975 when they were all captured, e.g. Nha Trang Air Base. In addition Category:Installations of the Vietnam People's Air Force should cover all installations of the VPAF, including those opened postwar, so how is that more specific if all you want to know are the bases used by the VPAF during the Vietnam War? Mztourist (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you specifically want to capture the RVNAF use of particular installations, have you considered 'Category:Installations of the Republic of Vietnam Air Force,' or, should you consider the COMMONNAME to be SVNAF, Category:Installations of the South Vietnam Air Force'? This is part of what I just said I would do regarding RVNAF installations above (though I cannot do everything at lightspeed), but there's no reason you couldn't do it too. This would more properly organise the RVNAF category, and create a category which would properly sit under Category:Air force installations. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I adopted a broad definition of Military Bases of the Vietnam War to capture every base regardless of who used them, whereas your subcategorization raises all these issues - was it a USAF base? A USMC base? A US Army base? An RVNAF base? An ARVN base? A VPAF base? Or some of all of them? Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's an installation that's been used by multiple armed services, to make sure that that armed service's highest-level category includes that installation within it, yes, add a category for USAF, RVNAF, ARVN, USMC - as many services as used the base. One doesn't need to try and restrict articles to a single category. Even an installation that only had a single user should have a state/county/city or equivalent category to make sure it's in the proper geographical category, and a date of opening/date of closing category. You'll see at Category:Military installations that they're usually sub-categorized by branch, type, country, and date of opening/closing - trying to maintain the master categorisation by a war is actually unusual. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Military facilities, to installations

I have closed the May CFD, but there are more: Category:Military facilities on the National Register of Historic Places by state. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Poland and air forces

In the last few weeks I have been updating NATO and EU air forces; some in all details as i.e. Italian Air Force#Organisation, Hellenic Air Force#Organisation, Hungarian Air Force#Structure, Spanish Air Force Order of Battle etc. and for some only cosmetic updates. The difference is how much information an air force had on its homepage (which I always then used as main reference). Still missing are: France, Portugal, Romania, Turkey, the Royal Air Force (whose article is so chaotic it would need a copyedit that halves it by removing redundant, duplicate and outdated and useless information) and maybe I will also do Canada and the US... and there are now two questions:

1. Should the information about the air force structure at i.e. Italian Air Force#Organisation, Hellenic Air Force#Organisation be split into their own articles? Spanish Air Force Order of Battle already existed, but this is the only air force where this split has been done. Should we split other air force articles too?
   

Take a look at WP:SIZERULE; it depends on the size of the main article. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I finally understood the Polish military reform of three years ago... the Polish Land Forces, the Polish Air Force, and the Polish Navy do not exist anymore. They were all merged into the Armed Forces General Command. The new structure of the armed forces is as follows:

• General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces
  • Armed Forces General Command (Poland)
    • Land Forces Inspectorate (Poland)
    • Navy Inspectorate
    • Air Force Inspectorate
    • Special Forces Inspectorate
    • Branches Inspectorate (Reconnaissance, Electronic Warfare, Air Defence, Engineering, Chemical, Signal, and Medical units)
    • Training Inspectorate
    • + ALL operational and training units
  • Armed Forces Operational Command
    • Land Operations Centre - Land Component Command[14]
    • Naval Operations Centre - Naval Component Command
    • Air Operations Centre - Air Component Command
  • Territorial Defence Forces
  • Military Police
  • Warsaw Garrison Command

That's it. Army, Air Force and Navy do not exist anymore. The inspectorates under the Armed Forces General Command do not command any units. It's all on the site of the Polish Ministry of Defence. So my question now is: should be close the articles about the Polish Land Forces, Polish Air Force, and Polish Navy? Like: "The Polish Air Force was a ... in 2015 it was merged with the other services to form the Armed Forces General Command and lost all its units on the same date." Or how should we proceed? Per see none of these services do exist anymore and unlike i.e. the Belgian Air Component, the Polish Air Component Command has no units until the General Staff assigns units from the General Command to it. I would like to hear your input on this. Thank you, noclador (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

English speakers, our main market will have a really hard time coping with the "disappearance" of single services. If we tried to "freeze" the single service articles people would always, I think, keep adding stuff. Make a note, definitely on the single service page to that effect, and leave historical data and all orbats up to 2015. After that, create Armed Forces Operational Command (Poland) - deserves a page of its own anyway, AND its single-service operational commands and three other organisations. Your move from there, I think, would be to add updated info to the AFOC and its subordinate commands pages. All the relevant new commands should also be linked at the old service pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See our earlier discussion at User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Polish Armed Forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not entirely correct that the LF, AF, Navy and SF do not exist any more. They no longer function as separate operational entities in which a Land Forces Command has operational control over the land forces units and formations etc., but they remain legally as separate services under separate military regulations. Just as example the army aviation remains under the inspectorate for the land forces and the naval aviation brigade remains under the inspectorate for the navy. They are not brought together with the air force flying units under a unified inspectorate for air operations. Even the official name of the command underlines the existence of separate services and this is why I always translate as close to the original as possible, because efforts to simplify and relate to somewhat similar entities in other countries more often than not distort things. The command is called Armed Forces SERVICES General Command. There is a distinction between services and branches. The services of the Polish armed forces are the land forces, air forces, navy, special forces and the territorial defence troops. The branches are either independent branches (for example the signals and the logistical troops, formed into separate inspectorates, the Warsaw Garrison Command etc.) or branches of the services (armoured and mechanised troops, motorised and airborne troops, artillery and combat engineers of the land forces, aviation, ground based missile air defence and radar troops of the air forces, fleet, naval aviation and shore-based combat support and combat service support troops of the navy). The pages for the Polish armed forces do need overhaul, but not to the extend where the separate services are declared extinct. B.Velikov (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe your assertion that the command is called "Armed Forces Services General Command" to be wrong. When I go to the English version of the Polish MoD they call the command: Armed Forces General Command. And when I visit the Polish site of the Armed Forces General Command under [Directly subordinate units / institutions http://dgrsz.mon.gov.pl/dowodztwo/artykul/departamenty/jednostkiinstytucje-bezposrednio-podlege-1032549/] it lists all units of the armed forces as directly reporting to the Armed Forces General Command, but only one of the inspectorates. Therefore I assume that the land force, air force, and navy inspectorate are integral to the Armed Forces General Command and they command no units anymore. An assumption reinforced by going to the [Armed Forces General Command structure site http://dgrsz.mon.gov.pl/dowodztwo/lista-aktywnosci/] where the inspectorates and the Armed Forces General Command staff are listed as the command's parts. Before we start doing these updates here: let's be sure about the structure and have a plan how to proceed. cheers, noclador (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There is sometimes a difference between the literal translation of (French, German, Polish) etc and the name the armed forces use in English for the command (or unit). We should probably use the English name published by the Polish Armed Forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The translation is bad and the reason is bad command of military English. I will explain.

Armed Forces <-> Armed Service <-> Arm / Service
Streitkräfte <-> Teilstreitkraft <-> Waffengattung
Вооружённые Силы <-> Вид вооружённых сил <-> Род войск
Forces armées <-> Composante / Branche <-> Arme / Troupes
Fuerzas Armadas <-> Rama <-> Arma / Cuerpo
Forze armate <-> Componente <-> Arma / Corpo

You follow thus far? Nothing tricky. Everything is pretty much straight forward. There is clear distinction between the armed forces in their entirety, an armed service and an element of that armed service. Here comes Poland:

Siły Zbrojne <-> Rodzaj sił zbrojnych <-> Rodzaj wojsk

You see the problem?

The US Army, the US Navy, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard are armed services. Together they form the US Armed Forces.
The Royal Navy, the British Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines are armed services. Together they form the British Armed Forces.
The Italian Army, the Italian Air Force, the Italian Navy and the Carabiniers are armed services. Together they form the Italian Armed Forces.

Well, not according to the person(s), who has made the translation of the Polish General and Operational commands. To them the Armed Forces are made of armed forces. To them the Wojska Lądowe, Siły Powietrzne, Marynarka Wojenna, Wojska Specjalne and the Wojska Obrony Terytorialnej are armed forces (rodzaje sił zbrojnych). Together they form the Armed Forces of the Polish Republic (Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej). So they don't see a need to translate Dowództwo Generalne Rodzajów Sił Zbrojnych in English as Armed Forces' Armed Forces General Command. You see why the translation is incorrect? Nice and tidy, and also wrong. In Polish you cannot make the distinction between the armed forces as a whole (Siły Zbrojne) and a distinct armed service (siła zbrojna), nor the distinction between an armed service (rodzaj siłej zbrojnej) and an element within an armed service (rodzaj wojsk) without the context, the way you could in other languages. In English you read service, you know what it means, you read arm, you know what it means. In German you read Teilstreitkraft and Waffengattung and you know the difference without further clarification. The same way in Russian - вид and род. How can you make the difference between rodzaj and rodzaj without further explanation? This is why it should literally be Armed Forces' Armed Services General Command, thus the more appropriate Armed Forces Services General Command.

That's about the names of the commands. Now about the armed services. On January 1, 2014 legal and Constitutional amendments were set in action, which establish the current structure of the Polish military. According to them the separate commands of the different armed services and the positions of commanders of the land, air, naval and special forces were abolished, NOT the services in general. They not only continue to exist, but on January 1, 2017 a fifth armed service has been constituted, equal in status to the other four - the Territorial Defence Troops (WOT). Just because there are no separate armed services commands exercising operational control over the corresponding units and formations does not mean that the services do not exist any more. There is no particular Land Forces Command, so the land forces do not exist any more. There is no particular Air Forces Command, so the air force does not exist any more. There is no particular Land Forces Command, so the land forces do not exist any more. There is no particular Special Forces Command, so the special forces do not exist any more. HOWEVER there IS a distinct Territorial Defence Troops Command and the WOT has nothing to do neither with the General Command nor with the Operational Command. So does this mean that there are three Polish armed services - the General, the Operational and the Territorial Defence Troops, or does it mean that there is only one armed service within the Polish Armed Forces and this is the WOT? Does it mean that when an army battalion is transfered from the General to the Operational Command for the duration of a military operation it miraculously switches services at the stroke of a pen?

No. The Land Forces do exist. Not as an operational military body, but in the form of the

• Inspektorat Wojsk Lądowych = Inspectorate of the Land Troops under the General Command and the
• Centrum Operacji Lądowych – Dowództwa Komponentu Lądowego = Center of Land Operations - Command of the Land Component under the Operational Command

Same thing goes for the air force and the navy. The SF have a separate chain of command, and the Territorial Defence Troops have their own.

Just because they do not exist as separate operational entities does not mean they do not exist as separate bodies according to the legislation of the country. http://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/pl/pages/wojska-ladowe-2016-04-18-t/ - summary of the land forces http://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/pl/pages/siy-powietrzne-2016-04-18-k/ - summary of the air force http://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/pl/pages/marynarka-wojenna-2016-04-18-j/ - summary of the navy http://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/pl/pages/wojska-specjalne-o/ - summary of the special forces http://www.mon.gov.pl/obrona-terytorialna/ - summary of the territorial defence troops From an official Polish MoD source.

But any thorough edits of the wiki articles regarding the Polish Armed Forces right now would be futile. There is a broad understanding within the country's higher officials, that the instated reform is counter-productive, most importantly at a time when the European nations are streamlining their military command structures the position of Chief of the Polish General Staff was circumvented, virtually hanging in the air. A new structure will be implemented, there just is no consensus at the moment what exactly would it be. That lack of common ground between the President, the Parliament, the Minister of National Defence and the National Security Council have resulted in a stalemate and for a over a year the promotions of high ranking officers have been put on hold, for lack of certainty about the command structure, which will be implemented. The high point of that was the dismissal of minister Macierewicz on January 9, 2018. The top priority of his successor Mariusz Błaszczak is the coordination with the other high state institutions for the planning and implementation of a new command structure and it seems that the central point would be the reinstatement of unified commands of the separate armed services.

http://www.defence24.pl/reforma-dowodzenia-rozlozona-na-etapy-bbn-po-wizycie-prezydenta-w-sgwp http://www.defence24.pl/pozorowana-reforma-systemu-dowodzenia-silami-zbrojnymi-opinia http://www.defence24.pl/mon-i-bbn-ruszaja-wspolne-prace-nad-zmianami-w-systemie-dowodzenia B.Velikov (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Texas World War II Army Airfields

I just noticed you deleted this article due to a copyvio. There are dozens of articles that linked to it, many seem to be in a See Also section where there are now redlinks which I think look really bad there. Any way to create a stub from the old article just to avoid these redlinks. I really don't want to remove them all manually, but there is no justification to "see" an article that doesn't exist. MB 02:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This copyvio is a very serious matter. I do not believe creating such a redirect is justified. Sometimes, like in these cases, grunt work is required on this site. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I followed your answer. I didn't say anything about a redirect. I went ahead and created a new article from scratch.MB 18:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

What is your problem? [15] Why are you reverting my edits? That image does not show Afghan men but men from some other country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashtoon989 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hazara hail from the general Bamiyan area and are just as much part of the ANA as any other Afghan group. 22:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Self revert. There is no verifiable proof that these armed men are either Hazara or ANA, and it is an unofficial photo. We have plenty of official photos of the ANA we can use. FYI Garuda28. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The point is why do you favor Hazara ethnic group, which constitutes about 10% of the Afghan army, over all the others? Are you racist? Do you want Hazaras to be special than all the others? Is this the policy of Wikipedia to make Hazaras stand out from all the others? Do you not think that this is wrong and evil? Are the other ethnic groups (90%) who are dying everyday defending their country not important? Just think about how many white U.S. soldiers died since 9-11 in the Middle East. Would it be OK to put a photo of only black US soldiers in such situation?Pashtoon989 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You frankly baffle me. I'm not sure why you believe that me, a New Zealander, would have particular preferences on Afghan ethnicities. The section was about ethnic composition. What I saw seemed to indicate we had a photo that might illustrate one of the ethnicities of the Afghan Army. So I put it back in. Make sure you WP:Assume Good Faith, don't make accusations. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Home Command (British Army), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Block of Mztourist

Hi Buckshot, I just noticed that you blocked Mztourist for edit warring. I've only glanced at what they did recently, but I can see that they were involved mainly in disputes with A bicyclette on military articles. I'm not here to argue the merits of the block, but it looks to me like you are WP:INVOLVED. For example, you and Mztourist were battling at List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966). You and Mztourist also edited 7th Infantry Division (Vietnam), although your edit there was more innocuous. The intersection of your and Mztourist's edits shows that you and they share similar topic interests. Don't you think your block was ill-considered because of your involvement with Mztourist?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Raketnaya translation, again

This revision moved the 53rd Brigade article to 'Missile' from 'Rocket'. Google searching shows that rocket is being used less for its designation than missile. Do you think we should reconsider the naming standard for these articles? Kges1901 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDing complaint

Here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06 Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

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 a supergun 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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Control

The caption for this map says that Somalia controls the dark green areas on the map. It also says that light green is uncontrolled. Both statements are incorrect. Do you believe otherwise? Thylacoop5 (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Puntland acknowledges the SFG's sovereignty. As far as I'm concerned, that makes the map correct. Make sure you abide by WP:CONSENSUS before you make drastic changes to any Somali articles, especially those concerning sovereignty. Otherwise you may be blocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

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: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs 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) 12:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Allies awards for USSR

Dear Buckshot06! Earlier we discussed that there are no lists of awards given to the soldiers of the Red Army. I suppose that after the meeting of the Allied armies, the command of the US armies had the opportunity to reward the Red Army soldiers. But again, only after the meeting. How did the awards take place? What documents did all this regulate? I found that Guard Colonel Tyurin Andrei Ivanovich (died in battle on April 15, 1945) was awarded the Silver Star = 25670683 & id1 = a8da4d43d047346553d655851146a69f. I believe that this award is not posthumous. How do you think you under what circumstances could he get this award (the meeting was not yet)? (Tyurin was presented to the title of Hero of the Soviet Union!!!)? Георгий Палкин (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Giorgi!! Kges1901, Ryan.opel, I'm not really tracking this, can you comment? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Before the meeting, and throughout the war, the US decorated numerous Soviet soldiers for service to the Allied cause, probably due to recommendations from the Soviets. Examples of such awards (in 1944) include the Distinguished Service Medal given to Ghukas Madoyan and the Distinguished Service Cross awarded to Gleb Baklanov. So inter-Allied awards weren't restricted to after the meeting took place, though it seems that a particularly large number of awards were given out immediately after the meeting. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we assume that (before the meeting) an exchange of information about persons worthy of awarding took place between the Allied Army Command? Are there documents that the Red Army sent a list of soldiers worthy of the award to the US Army, and the US Army in turn sent its list to the Red Army. These lists were approved and the soldiers of each army received awards? How did the awards take place? How were the insignia handed over between the Allies? Георгий Палкин (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Since awards to foreign nationals have to published in Army General Orders it might be useful to go back and search through those records, if they go back far enough online. Another source might the Military Times Hall of ValorRyan.opel (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the discussion. But a thousand questions remain (чёрт побери!!!). How did I understand the site for which the respected Dear Ryan.opel gave the link is not official?

Dear Buckshot06! Sometimes it seems to me that because of my bad English you can not understand what I want to ask. I'm sorry. Sometimes I do not understand You. Is it possible to form my questions to you in Russian? And then to clarify (I hope this will benefit us all. Will I lay down a Russian-English dictionary under the pillow?)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Георгий Палкин (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Giorgi, of course, yes, feel free to put your questions in Russian. Ezhiki will no doubt help us out if we need some translation help, and I will see if I can find a English-Russian dictionary for under my pillow.. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation Licorne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

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 a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)