User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 25

WWII British 3rd & 4th Battalions

Yes, you're right. In simple terms the Militia (United Kingdom) regiments were affilated to Line regiments under the Cardwell Reforms and became numbered battalions of them (3rd, sometimes 4th as well) under the Childers Reforms. Under the Haldane Reforms they became the Special Reserve, tasked with supplying reinforcements to the Regular battalions. Although they remained legally in existence until 1953, most of them only had a shadowy existence after WWI (except in Northern Ireland where the Territorial Force/Territorial Army did not exist until 1938). There are still odds and ends left in some reserve engineer and signal units.

The page you mentioned seems to be firmly post-WWII, but I could see if I can devise a short pre-1945 history summary, pointing to the other historical pages for details. CheersRickfive (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 144th Guards Motor Rifle Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian Army Military History

I wanted to spin off the Egyptian Army's History into a separate article. I can do it myself no problem, but I just wanted your opinion before I did so. We have a ancient egyptian military history article already but not one for a modern. I'd like to incorporate all of the other smaller corps articles' histories into it. If we were to do it, it would likely result in a large part of the main egyptian army article being moved. - AH (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Corps have their own independent articles- you will see for example Russian Tank Troops, Armor Branch, or Royal Australian Armoured Corps. Thus you can copy over text from the corps' articles, that's fine, but do not delete material from, for example, Egyptian Artillery Corps or Egyptian Armoured Corps.

As for a main history article, there's not enough text in the Egyptian Army article to move anything yet - our guidelines (WP:SIZERULE) now stipulate about 60kB, and it's only 45kB. Syrian Army is 78 kB and Iraqi Army is 93kB without anyone considering a split of info into a history article, and other armies - US and Brit etc - are longer still. More importantly, the history is vital for understanding how the Egyptian Army got where it is today.

So feel free to set up a History of the Egyptian Army, though really it is not necessary yet, it could wait years (we don't have proper data on 1824-1939); the text on the Pasha's reforms is a bit detailed, you could transfer some text, and remove virtually all the ancient dynasty material, which has little to nothing to do with the modern army; but the remainder, copy without removing.

I'm going to be carefully watching your edits and may copy material back into Egyptian Army if you take out too much. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

140th (5th London) Field Regiment, RA

I see what you mean! Ideally, 140th should be a subsection of the 5th London Artillery from 1860 onwards (yet to be done), but there is too much material here for that. I note that there is also an incorrect redirect in existence for the parent regiment (92nd (5th London) Fd Rgt). There is a certain amount of source material around for the 5th London Artillery, so I'll promote it up my 'to do' list and see if I can straighten the whole thing out, with a link pointing to the 140th page and a corrected 92nd page or redirect. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do to bring the 140th page into line.Rickfive (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Military Region (Egypt), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Desert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding comments made in my talk page

The source used in my article regarding the Order of Battle of the Indonesian National Armed Forces as of January 1946 came from the Wikipedia Indonesian article id:Tentara Keamanan Rakyat, regarding the list of formations of the Indonesian military as of 1946, as wel as their commanding officers and respective areas of operations. Regarding the other article I made about the Military Institute of Physical Culture, I express any apologies made for any mistakes committed in creating said article. Hope for your understanding. - JMRAMOS0109 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response. One reply will *NOT* wipe out the number of complaints I have received, and are monitoring, regarding your incomplete WP:REFERENCE-ing and other issues. (1), you need to add that specific reference to the Indonesian Orbat article; (2), you need to read and respond regarding the User_talk:JMRAMOS0109##PLA_3rd_Guard_Division_-_Not_"Guards",_but_"Guard" ; (3), the Polish People's Army order of battle article; and (4) the issues regarding Soviet/Russian articles (User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_24#Ineffectual_editing) from B.Velikov. In particular, I will require you to STOP editing all Russian/Soviet military articles; I have noticed too many inappropriate usages of Western terms when there are perfectly good Soviet terms. 'Task Force' is *not* applicable half the time. I'm happy to let you restart at some point, but you need to be supervised.

You need to acknowledge and start working through these issues, on pain of administrator action; you're perfectly able to appeal these instructions to other administrators, and/or including possibly the Milhist coordinators. Copying in Peacemaker67 and Hawkeye7 (coords, please see User talk:JMRAMOS0109#Military Institute of Physical Culture). Buckshot06 (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I will do as you asked me and will resolve such issues. JMRAMOS0109 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And regarding the Indonesian ORBAT, I've removed the ORBAT of the infantry regiments/brigades, as it has no binding reference whatsoever in the Indonesian page where it was sourced. JMRAMOS0109 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

B.Velikov would you kindly please check JMRAMOS0109 edits in your area of expertise and make any recommendations you see fit? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I am sorry. Don't take it personally. I am not being disrespectful to you, or

being obstructive. I am just beyond caring and beyond illusions that the editing policy will change for the better. I have started some years ago making edits in the Bulgarian section of Wikipedia in the areas I am competent in - politics, history, political geography, somewhat military matters and law enforcement. I started doing it, because the articles were written very poorly, clearly by people without the slightest idea about those things. After a year I gave up. I had so many other things to write about, but it was pointless. The military, history and politics articles were ruined by the changes made by "well established" entrenched editors with interests mostly in economics and literature. I gave up more than three years ago. To this day nothing new has been written on these subjects, yet several times a month my articles get pointless edits - a word here and there, that do not contribute one tiny bit to make them more comprehensive or to clarify something. More to the point they get pushed around several times a year from one category to another, as if that makes any sense. The content of the articles stays the same and yet it is as if they mutate somehow. I actually know competent and knowledgable people, who have edited articles in the past and who have been pushed away by the same entrenched editors. A friend of mine is one of the biggest contributors of historic photographs to the Naval Museum in Varna. When people at the museum are uncertain about something from our naval or merchant marine history, they consult him. He has stopped making edits a long time ago. Another friend of mine works at the historic museum in my home city. He is a member of our historic reenactment society. He is also in charge of the international cooperation with foreign museums and travels a lot to countries in the region. He has also stopped editing for the same reason.

The same thing is going on in the English Wikipedia. A ton of editors constantly making cosmetic edits, just to inflate their number of contributions and as a result participation trophies are being handed around hand over fist in the form of medal for this and medal for that. JMRAMOS and editors like him illustrate that pretty well, but that's the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of his edits are pointless, substituting a word or two for another. A substantial number of the rest of his edits are really disruptive, making changes that actually divert the meaning of things. Edits, that contradict the whole point of Wikipedia. The whole idea is to make people familiar with practices, traditions, knowledge both from other countries and those that are globally recognised. The point is to explain them, not to compress them in one uniform mould. I can give you only three examples off the top of my head, to illustrate my words, but there are countless more.

He changes the position of "Commander" of military education institutions in the Soviet Union, Russia and Eastern European countries to "Superintendant". This is not a more appropriate wording. It is WRONG wording, that changes the facts. In the countries, which followed the organisation traditions of the Soviet military these institutions the role of cadred divisions in peacetime, which was just as important as their primary role to produce officers for the armed forces. The plans for their transformation into combat divisions or brigades upon mobilisation were well established in advance. Just to give you an example within three days of enacting full mobilisation the Higher Combined Arms Military School in my home city (the predecessor of the current National Defence University in Veliko Tarnovo) was to convert into the 82nd Motor Rifle Division. In peacetime the division existed on paper, but its operational plans were frequently overhauled, the officer cadre (the lecturers at the higher military school) familiarised itself with them and those officers received a substantial increase in pay for the wartime positions, they were planned to take over. These officers even occasionally addressed one another not by their ranks or by "Colleague", but by their wartime positions, as a practical joke. Even after the countries of the former Warsaw Pact other than the USSR have re-orientated towards the West and have reformed their armed forces along NATO lines, the title of Commander of a military school was retained out of tradition. We don't have university superintendents, we don't have provosts. Even the governing bodies of our higher military schools and our Military Academy are LITERALLY called 'commands' and the officer in charge of such institution is officially designated "Chief of the..." ('началник', [nachalnik], the same word as the Czech and Croatian 'načelnik').

The way he changes "Higher Military School" to "Academy" willy-nilly is just as wrong and ridiculous. There may be no clearly established distinction between those terms in the US, but there is in many other countries, Eastern European countries included. I will give you an example with my country, but it is the same way with other former Warsaw Pact member countries too. This scale has been retained to date. - training center - the lowest level - basic, tactical and specialist training for conscripts and specialists - school - like a Sergeant college - it gave the opportunity for school students to graduate their high school education in a military high school, receive the rank of a Sergeant and pursue a professional career in the armed forces or to continue their officer training at a higher military school. The Bulgarian language has two different words for school, which are synonymous, but the military uses them distinctively to underline the difference between its educational institutions. The first word is 'shkola' ('школа') and it is a direct transplant from the Greek 'Σχολείο', Latin 'schola', Italian 'scuola', Spanish 'escuela', French 'école', German 'Schule', English 'school', Nordic 'skole', Polish 'szkola' etc. These schools were officially designated Sergeant School ('сержантска школа' [serzhantska shkola]). They were gradually phased out in the 1990s and today our military is professional, so in order to distinguish the military high school institutions of the past from the professional NCO training institutions of the present, today sergeants are trained at a Sergeant College ('сержантски колеж' [serzhantski kolezh]). - higher military school - officer training school - the military counterpart of a civilian university, which high school graduates enter after successfully passing exams. In this case the other Bulgarian word for school is used, namely 'uchilishte' ('училище'). This in turn corresponds with the same word in Czech, Slovak, Serbian, Croatian etc. - 'učilište'. It is exactly the same word, with the same meaning, pronunciation ('uchilishte'), writing, when you take transliteration into account. Upon graduation the officer candidates are promoted to first lieutenants. There was a specific distinction among the officer schools too. There was a Reserve Officers School in Pleven. As military service was compulsory, a high school male graduate could postpone it if he proceeded to study at a civil university. After he completed the university degree, he had three choices to serve his term in the military - 1) as a regular conscript (the worst option, as there were no benefits), 2) to attend half a year in training at a special officer training faculty embeded in a civil university (similar to officer training at a British university) and after the completion of this training he is promoted to FIRST lieutenant and enters active service as an officer or 3) spend a year in training at the ROS in Pleven, after which he is promoted to SECOND lieutenant, gets assigned to the reserves and pursues a civilian job. So to distinguish that officer school from the others, the regular officer schools were designated Higher Military School ('висше военно училище', [visshe voenno UCHILISHTE]) and this one was designated School for Reserve Officers ('школа за запасни офицери', [SHKOLA za zapasni ofitseri]). You can see this naming convention in Poland. The Poles previously followed the Russian tradition and trained their officers at institutions designated "Higher Officer School" ('Wyszca Szkola Oficerska', as their language lacks two synonymous words for 'school', they explicitly include 'Officer School' in the designation). They have recently turned to the Western style of designation and have changed the names of those institutions to "Academy" ('Akademia'). No reorganisation, no change of purpose, just a change in the official designation. - military academy - the higher level of officer education - you cannot reach the rank of major without completing a Master's degree in Strategic command at the Military Academy. The 'Command Staff College' or 'War School' or whatever other equivalent in other countries is the "Command [and] Staff Faculty" ('Факултет „Командно-щабен“') of our Military Academy. So to the uneducated American it makes perfect sense to just substitute "Military Academy" with "Command Staff College", but this is totally wrong and as you see it turns a rigid established system upside down. And the reason why different levels of military education institutions have a rigid order, because they correspond to the civil education institutions. A military Sergeant College corresponds to a civilian college. A Higher Military School corresponds to a civilian university. The Military Academy corresponds to higher Doctor and Professor programmes at the civilian universities and at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. So the same way we have the civilian education path of: college -> university -> academy, we have the military education path of: Sergeant School -> Higher Military School -> Military Academy. So we don't have an equivalent of, say "Trinity College of Oxford University" or "Harvard Business School" or "London School of Economics". 'School' is one thing, 'college' is another, 'university' is a third thing and 'academy' is a whole different thing. You cannot just willy-nilly substitute one for the other whatever you feel like, because you totally change the meaning. WHo cares what the naming convention in the US is, when the subject matter is NOT EVEN CLOSELY RELATED to the US?! I am so sick and tired of his constant nonsense, that I don't see any point in even trying to rectify it.

His utter nonsense to rename Soviet air regiments to air wings is painfully ignorant. The only thing in common between a US air wing and a Soviet air regiment is that both fly aircraft. A USAF wing is in a sense a combined arms formation. It has its own Headquarters, its own Operations Division, Meteo, ATC services, the airfield engineer, logistics, radar and signals, security units are organic to the air wing. An air regiment DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. First of all, it's not a formation, it's a unit. Even a tank or a motor rifle regiment in the Soviet Army was combined arms with its own artillery, air defence, engineers etc. The Soviet air regiment included the regimental command, the pilots, the aircraft and skeleton ground crew. That was it! It did not have operational authority. The only autonomy the commander had was in the manner in which he would execute the tasks, given to him by the respective air division. The ground crews were limited to regular flight operations ground support and very limited repairs. More serious repairs were done outside of the air regiment. The airfield engineer battalion or company was completely separate from it. The radar and signals battalion or company was completely separate from it. The airfield security company was completely separate from it. Medical services were completely separate from it. Logistical units were completely separate from it. These might have been based at the same airfield, but reported to the respective higher authority - an air division or an air corps and the air regiment commander had absolutely no authority over them whatsoever. EVEN the trucks which launched the engines, the trucks which brought the armament and the tankers which refueled the aircraft were completely separate from the air regiment, attached to it from the air division.

You are British, right? So imagine he starts editing the articles about the British Armed Forces: - AAC Regiment? Nah, I'm changing it to 'Army Helicopter Battalion'. - 22 SAS? Let's make it '22nd Special Forces Detachment (United Kingdom)'. Yeah, that's so much better! - Armoured infantry? There ain't no tanks in it! I'm changing it to mechanised infantry. - RAF Marham? What's that? A station? Like a train station? What? That doesn't make any sense. Let's make it Marham AFB, which houses the 138th Fighter Wing (138th FW). So much better and clear now! Etc., etc., etc.

That is exactly what he has been doing all this time, regarding articles about institutions in countries he clearly knows nothing about. I just find the arrogance of someone feeling that confident to correct other people in areas, in which he or she has absolutely no knowledge to speak of and the confidence that person has, that his or her edits are meaningful, to be trully astonishing. I am not even scandalised. I am in awe. I have lost any interest and motivation to go on, which is clearly visible from the edits I have been making lately. I am sorry! I have already let it go and now I got really heated up and frustrated yet again. There's no point to dwell further on that. I'm out.B.Velikov (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear B.Velikov. Thank you for your response. Wikipedia is completely voluntary, so I always, only, make requests, unless I am dealing with people that I know are keen to spend significant amounts of time filling gaps (Dormskirk, many thanks for all the work you do.) I understand, somewhat, your anger and frustration; don't worry about JMRAMOS0109, I will work that issue. Now, I'm a New Zealander, though I've been studying the Royal Air Force and British Army for 35 years plus. He is a Filippino, so I will work to try and transfer that example into Philippine-specific military terms.

What I would like to ask you is which are your few military pages of absolute highest interest, where I can intervene to make sure you have the manoeuvre room to do what you would like to do, on less than five pages. Yes, of course no-one except the most exceptional makes substantive edits, fewer more with proper referencing. That's just where we are. That's why I want to support you for your areas of absolute highest military interest, because I believe you have a significant potential contribution to make. Many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

614 ABG on USSF page

I wanted to clarify with you that I removed the group from the org chart since it wasn’t an operations unit like SpOC’s wings or the 614 AOC – not because it was reassigned outside of SMC or the USSF (which I have seen no indication of). After seeing your edit summary, I felt it would be best to make sure we were on the same page with regard to the reasons for the edit. Garuda28 (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The other reason I reached out to you individually on your talk page was that your edit summary had me a little concerned that you either perceived me as out of line or I did something to frustrate you. Wanted to check in with you if that was the case, or if I’m just reading into a line of text too much. Garuda28 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I was yes quite surprised you'd remove such a well established unit from the listing. You've done a pretty good job on the USSF page generally. Also, MILHIST happily goes around ignoring all the support trades, units, organisations all the time. They also serve, and if they're notable, we shouldn't just remove them on a whim. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad we’re on the same page now. I see your reasoning, and it makes sense. I actually wasn’t aware of some of those concerns about MILHIST at large ignoring support units, so thank you for helping me see that perspective. I’m going to try to be more conscious of it in the future in my own editing. Garuda28 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for RAF Shepards Grove

An editor has asked for a deletion review of RAF Shepards Grove. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

== Where are the missile squadrons? ==

First, it looks like we were cross-editing 6th Tactical Missile Squadron yesterday. I think a couple of references you may have added are orphans as a result. You may want to take a look and see if they have to be put in the References section.

One of your changes was to make the squadron's station its missile site, rather than on the main base. I know of no references that support this. Although all the squadron's missiles and operations were at the off base site, everything I've seen indicates the squadron's headquarters were on the main base. See, for example any strategic missile squadron. They had sites much further away from the main base (and IIRC, the first Atlas squadron, like BOMARC squadrons, had all its missiles at a single location),. I agree the site should be linked (I just did this for a drive-by of the 26th Tactical Missile Squadron). If you have a source showing the squadron station off-base, I'd like to know, but Cornett & Johnson, e.g., are pretty consistent in listing missile squadrons' stations as th main bases. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. You set up 6th TMS as per your best understanding of the situation as a model, and then I can work from that in future. Just put in somewhere in the text exactly what you've said above, making it clear that the HQ was at the base, but the launchers were at the offsite complex. However, I do not think the problem will reoccur. 30 SW is long gone, after being told his articles were super over complex, but he never could adapt. Suffolk County Air Force Base Missile Annex is the only article on the BOMARC/other USAF SAM sites that I'm aware of, the only one that he created. On and off I'm still hacking away to simplify articles like CONAD. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done my thing now. I didn't see edits by 30SW in the history, although a citation I edited did look like his style. This might not be the best model as the detail on setting up the missile site may not be in articles for other ADMS articles. The 26th Squadron article is another way of doing it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Found the missing references on the site article. In the process, I noted that the site article claims the commander's office was on site, but this was challenged because it was expressly not so stated in the Boeing report cited as a source with a citation needed tag. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A (hopefully) final word. Falling back on the principal of publishing what RSs say, I looked at Cornett & Johnson's Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization. All BOMARC squadrons are listed as stationed at main bases with the exception of the 35th (Niagara Falls Air Force Missile Site) and 74th (Duluth Municipal Airport -- this was an ADC installation at the time, with a fighter group stationed there). --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. One thing, would you Lineagegeek? You set up or amend the redirects, like 35th Air Defense Missile Squadron but you are often not putting the *defining* category (WP:CATDEF) on them. The 35th ADMS was a *missile squadron* of the *United States Air Force*. So please also add Category:Missile squadrons of the United States Air Force to it. That category shows exactly what it *is*, and I've found several times I've had to add it after you have just only but the, for example, Category:Military units and formations established in 1959 or whatever year on it.. Cheers.

Much more importantly, are you and all your loved ones well, safe, and self-isolating as appropriate for your state/territory? Everything's pretty OK here. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. I'm subsisting, Hope your family is doing well, too. As for the categorization. I generally only use these categories for the most recent designation that fits. So if 6th Tactical Missile Squadron is in Category: United States Air Force Missile Squadrons, I wouldn't also list the 6th Air Defense Missile Squadron. That being said, I worked on most of these missile squadrons when I was new to Wikipedia, and rigorously applied the "most recent name" standard, which I now believe to be an error. Since the consolidated units have, for the most part, never been active, I think one of the previous unit names is usually more appropriate. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Great to hear!! I would argue that all units that have been active at any point since 1945 should be categorised; yes, I agree, units that never have been active since the 1985 redesignations (like the 359th Special Operations Group) should not be categorised. But CATDEF, in my view, means all ADMSs that have been active at any point since 1945 should have those categories included, otherwise we risk not listing all the ADMSs in the categories. Thus I would also like to move the 6th TMS to 6th ADMS. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Mztourist (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page messages

Hello Buckshot06. I recently came across some alarming messages you have posted on the talk pages of User:J-Man11, User:JMRAMOS0109 and User:Ech25. An administrator of your experience must know that it's not okay to speak to other editors like this,[1][2][3][4] issue orders and ultimatums,[5][6][7][8][9] unilaterally impose editing restrictions,[10][11][12][13] or threaten to use your admin tools in content disputes.[14][15][16] I realise you that think these editors are creating content problems that you have to clean up, and that maybe you lost your temper, but these are serious breaches of WP:ADMINCOND. Please stop.

Additionally, your deletion of The Lancastrian Volunteers was knowingly[17] out of process. As it seems a notable topic to me, could you please restore it and follow the usual procedures (i.e. AfD)? – Joe (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Joe Roe. Do you believe I should resign the tools - give up the mop?

Basically I took these actions because these users do not/did not communicate in any effective fashion unless spoken to harshly, and were damaging the encyclopedia through the creation of much unreferenced material which they had no record of referencing. :Have you you reviewed the record of interactions between J-Man11 and other editors repeatedly trying to improve his behaviour? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would invite you also to check with any of the coordinators of the Milhist project to see if they have any concerns about my behaviour.

As regards JMRAMOS0109, I would invite you to examine [18] [19] [20] [21]

As regards Ech25, as you will see from his talk page, he was a sockpuppet of J-Man11. Having been warned offline of that being a possibility, I wanted to give him a sharp warning. He has now been blocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I read the full context and realise that these editors had problems with their own conduct. However, the position of trust you hold comes with conduct expectations that apply to your interactions with all editors, regardless of how you or others judge the quality of their contributions. You might also consider the possibility that your aggressive approach exacerbated the initial problems.

Incivility aside, I would ask you what the policy basis is for:

1. Blocking or threatening to block editors for including insufficient references?
2. Ordering editors to perform an action within an arbitrary time limit, enforced by blocks (e.g. unless you reference this edit within 72 hours you will be blocked)?
3. Imposing editing restrictions as an individual administrator – in several instances you said these could be appealed using the "normal process", what is that process?

I'm not asking you to resign, but if you can't acknowledge that these actions are inappropriate, I think there are grounds for an admin misconduct case request to ArbCom. The coordinators of the military history WikiProject do not have a role in assessing admin conduct. – Joe (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely my conduct was borderline. Completely. But no-one else would take this on, at all. The alternative would have been so many, many, more rudderless articles, that barely met normal standards, continuing for years beyond count. I believe that harmed the encyclopedia greviously, and, I believe that in certain cases WP:IAR is there for a reason.

But, on another note, if my behaviour is under serious question, and it's borderline, then that gives me an opportunity. I have gotten far too wrapped up in Wikipedia for far, far, too long. It's not normal life - it's not flesh and blood. Having the tools feeds that involvement and increases it. So, given that you believe this is serious misconduct, and my actions are unjustified, then it might be an opportunity to step back & down as possibly I should have done many years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in, I wonder if you both might consider pausing this conversation for a few days, and restarting it in a positive manner? I haven't examined any of the stuff above, but I get the feeling that Buckshoto6 is open to constructive criticism, but feels under assault and that Joe Roe would be happy to get a positive change without the need for anything heavyhanded. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I second Dweller's suggestion that the issues raised here could be discussed and resolved after a period away from the screen. And I suggest to Buckshot06 that they pause their admin resignation request until either after this matter has been resolved, or after they have given the matter a few days to think about. There is the possibility that the admin request could be seen to have been made under a cloud (I think I may be inclined to think that way if there was a 'crat discussion), and so restoring admin tools might need to go through a RfA. The situation here reminds me of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. We had an admin who was in good faith attempting to protect articles against poor quality editing, but doing it against WP:ADMINCOND. The matter was resolved, and we have kept a valued admin. I hope the same can happen here. SilkTork (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I think you're misunderstanding the role of what a WikiProject is. While WikiProjects are often where consensus can be formed, they aren't governing authorities and can't decide whether editors can be blocked, even if some of the members are admins. I speak as a member of the U.S. Roads WikiProject - per WP:INVOLVED, unless it's outright vandalism I can't just go and block road editors who make edits I don't like, or even edits that most of the project members don't like. --Rschen7754 18:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If Joe Roe had checked, he would have seen that almost all the editors who are on the coord panel are admins. They are also highly experienced in these kind of military editing matters. I was not talking of them as a panel, I was talking of them as individuals. Yes, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman almost exactly parallels my situation here, and ADMINCOND may well have been breeched. But the main discussion, as is fitting for a request to have my administrator privileges removed, is now on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. For centralization of the discussion, please consider making further remarks there. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Now, Joe Roe, what's the proper forum for resolving the misbehaviour you have charged me of? How do I start that process? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue was directly connected to you making those comments as an admin. As you have voluntarily relinquished that role and clearly stated that you yourself believe you were "under a cloud" when doing so, there really isn't anything more to discuss. I can't speak for Joe but I would be surprised if he felt the need to pursue it any further. Per your own remarks at BN this seems like a perfect time to just take a break and don't worry about any of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully, fully, understand that those remarks were related to my making them as an admin. Now, at this point, I no longer want the tools. But a number of those involved in the discussion have implied that, even if Joe Roe is a bureaucrat and felt the need to come down hard, there is a possibility that any discussion/resolution forum might not have revoked my administrator status. I would very much appreciate if issues preparatory to any future RfA were clarified now, not after lengths of time when people are trying to remember things hazily. I want this admin-associated business resolved and clarified, and then I can get on with being a editor. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that your actions were justified by concerns over the quality of the contributions of the editors you targeted or by the (passive?) consent of other participants in WikiProject Military History. However, since you've now decided to step back and resign the bit, I consider the matter resolved. ArbCom is the proper forum for disputes over admin conduct, but since the question of desysopping you is now moot, I doubt the committee would accept a case (but of course that's up to the other arbs, I would recuse). I am not a bureaucrat, by the way. – Joe (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Buckshot. I just wanted to thank you for your many quality improvements to the wikipedia. It is no sin at all to get burnt out a bit. Good luck in your real life and come back sometimes when you feel, again many thanks. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Reflections on Milhist WikiProject

All of this is a great shame. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that part of the problem is the way that the Milhist project has created such a bureaucracy for itself that is impenetrable to experienced outsiders, let alone newbies. I've seen this kind of thing happen before with WikiProjects. I'd gently suggest the WikiProject considers this.

You have to remember that editors (whatever hats they wear) are our most prized assets. We should guide, encourage and help newbies, and RBI vandals. The middle ground ('stubbornly clueless newbie editor') is as rare as hen's teeth. The stubbornly resistant experienced editor is a different kettle of fish. They need to be shown consensus and then politely shown the door.

Click the link in my sig. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dweller I would argue, given the behaviour of J-Man11 and JMRAMOS0109, that they were stubbornly resistant experienced editors. They're super rare. Their persistent failings and stubbornness were exactly the reason why I reached the heights I did in dealing with them. Yet I should freely admit that Joe may have a point - when do the ends justify the means?

I acknowledge your point on civility.

All communities of humans dealing with specialised activities do tend to develop their own specific practices. The difference between Milhist and other projects is that there have been very, very, much more interested, almost overwhelmingly male, editors, over a long period, and thus more practices have been developed and codified.

If you are concerned about this issue, please, come to the main Milhist talk page and make your points. I will happily introduce you and defend your right not be shut down by unthinking blather. We all need always to be ready to consider our practices so that we may improve - otherwise how do we grow in life? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

about

Hello, it seems I am arriving too late! You're no longer using admin tools which I suppose would be helpful. I have found Wikipedia to be a quirky and interesting place. I guess you feel that way also. I think there are major problems on the site and hopefully they will be fixed. I don't see to find the right people interested in doing so. Recently posted on the admin noticeboard (not ANI but higher up than that even). I guess at your leisure since you have more time get back to me? I'd like to improve the site and not just wait around to locate helpful admins (if they exist). Pretty tough finding them. Momentum7 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What kind of problems do you see on the site? Be interested to hear. If you describe your problems I'm sure I can find some helpful admins for you.

Me? I got a bit exuberant about trying to shut down some aberrant behaviour, was warned about it, but then used the opportunity to try and step back a little - WP has been too much of my life for too long.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ironically you could bring things full circle by becoming an admin (with tools). I really honestly feel this site is a total train wreck. Momentum7 (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the second time that you've said there are major problems. What are they? Can you be more specific? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's far more productive ie safer for you to just peruse my edits. Momentum7 (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would kindly request you to be more specific, or to close this conversation. I am not aware of any hyper-surveillance on this site that might make anything 'unsafe'. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Merely mean that everything is recorded on Wikipedia. That's why people are able to follow and interfere with certain articles. I was saying if you read my edits it is clear. You yourself mentioned that you felt you were caught up in a circumstance. Ten years is quite a while, noble efforts. Momentum7 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I remain interested in improving this website. Merely giving up my admin status doesn't change that. What most do not seem to understand was that as regards the tools, it was an opportunity as well. I'm happy to listen to you about what you feel might be wrong with WP - happy to hear your thoughts. I do not understand what you feel the problems are. If you're really so uncomfortable with discussing this on a talk page, please e-mail me via the emailthisuser function on the left at the top. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your long and tireless service. Wishing you the best as you start the next chapter. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ad Orientem. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

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

5th Interceptor Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 16th Bombardment Squadron

William Halsey Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henderson Field

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ninth Air Force (re 47th Liaison Squadron)

What is today Ninth Air Force did not exist during World War II. [[United States Air Forces Central Command|Ninth Air Force]] is the proper link for references to the World War II Ninth Air Force. Thanks for the other changes to bygone Army headquarters, though.--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I knew. You may recall we disagreed at the time on the proper article title for the first iteration, formation, of Ninth Air Force, and I remain convinced that any article in WP that has a name that was used twice or three times should contain at least skeleton data on each time the name was used. This would avoid us having to hunt, most recently, through 5 IC/5 FC/V FC etc. As I have stated several times, this is an online website, and does not have to organise itself by U.S. Army/Air Force lineage rules. It should aid people looking for the information on a titled organisation, at any time the title was used. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Nationstate army branch headquarters has been nominated for renaming

Category:Nationstate army branch headquarters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sildemund (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Signals units of the Royal Air Force

A tag has been placed on Category:Signals units of the Royal Air Force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Long-Range Aviation

I refer to you, as you have clearly done a lot of the work on the article. On the talk page, I suggest it would benefit from being split into two separate but linked articles, as there is a difference between the words ADD and DA, and the article suffers from trying to cover the changes in technology, and in war & peace over 80 years, in one go. I have also tried to present a tighter, more logical, structure to the article as it is (splitting would not affect the content, just the opening paragraph, and linking to the 'other' - ADD:DA - half. I'd be interested in your comments to either aspect: the proposal and/or the tweaking.Protozoon (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE says that articles under 40 kB or so should not be split yet. You make a great case, it's all fine, but not yet. This is just an acknowledgement of your TP message - please make all replies at the article talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Aotearoa

I actually came to talk aviation, but was blown away by the Aotearoa flag! It has everything you need. But, unlike almost every shortlist option, it doesn't have everything you don't need... Why wasn't that on the referendum? Protozoon (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Glad you agree!! It was on the list, but only on the long list, see 2015–2016_New_Zealand_flag_referendums#Long list. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Structure of the New Zealand Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No. 8 Air Observers School RAF

Hello,

I've just come across No. 8 Air Observers School RAF and nothing in their makes any sense to me and according to the page history you edited it last.

The only 8 AOS RAF i know of formed at RAF Evanton on 3 September 1939 then became No. 8 Bombing Gunnery School RAF on 1 November 1939. REF: Alan Lake: Flying units of the RAF (1999) PG. 21.

Gavbadger (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

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

Army Reserve Medical Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fort Lee and Fort Jackson

List of former United States Army medical units (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fort Lee and Fort Jackson

Flag Officer Sea Training (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Appointment

RAF Transport Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gold Coast

United States Air Forces Central Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowman Field

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

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

British Forces Aden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Elworthy

Christopher Wallace (British Army officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chief of Joint Operations

Flag Officer Sea Training (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Appointment

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

added a link pointing to Alan West

Permanent Joint Headquarters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Richards

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Seal Team Six

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Seal_Team_Six. Konli17 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on 2d or 2nd for unit names

Hope you are doing well. I've noticed that some AF/SF units use 2d rather than 2nd in their names. I know wikipeida prefers the nd when in the text, but was wondering if there was a policy that you were aware of that would change d to nd in all cases, to include unit titles? Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a very controversial question; Lineagegeek will tell you that officially, the Army (whence the Air Force and Space Force came from) officially use 2d and 3d, rather than 2nd and 3rd. There have been countless discussions on the main talk page; you'd have to look at the archives for the most recent (and thus any most recent local Milhist consensus). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, as always. Perhaps with the Space Force (where I'm spending most of my time now) this won't be an issue if they decide to change unit naming formats. At this point I guess anything is possible. Garuda28 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Land Forces

Hello. I saw you reverted my revert on this article. The original revert was based on another edit of a user account who is subject to multiple-time complaints at Administrators' noticeboard, due to continous POV'ed edits ([22], [23], [24]). The mentioned edit was biased, relying on user POV, manupilative, lacking of supporting evidence (no reference at all) and it was trying to pull article elsewhere. I'll revert it again with good intention and hereby I'd like to underline that I respect you as a Wikipedia contributor and I'd like to avoid a potential edit warring. If you'd like to support such a controversial text, please kindly bring supporting evidences/references. Regards. Isik (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made a note at Talk:Turkish Land Forces. I will copy your note there and reply there. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

9th Combat Operations Squadron

Could you take a look at 9th Combat Operations Squadron#Reserve space operations. I recently marked this entire section as unreferenced, replacing individual paragraph tags. It has the appearance of a cut and paste, but I'm not up on how to detect this. If it's from a public source, it might be tolerable, but it seems to have more of a flavor of a news story, which could be copyerighted. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It was this single addition in Sept 2013 from a IP located at Maxwell Air Force Base, who had made a number of edits to space related air force pages. So it's from personal knowledge - WP:OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of armored and cavalry regiments of the United States Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camp Casey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of U.S. Department of Defense code names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Night Train.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 494th Air Expeditionary Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton Field.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Never too late

		The Helmet of Peace
		I was looking for peacekeepers, and I got more than what I expected — peacemakers. Though my methods were wrong, and my writing was wrong, the MILHISTORY people still showed their cool. Thanks to you and everyone who brought peace to Bangladesh Liberation War. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem Aditya Kabir. Everybody is busy, and sorting out these disputes can be tiresome, but never be afraid to ask for such assistance - we all have to pull together!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Aviation divisions of the Soviet and Russian Air Forces

A tag has been placed on Category:Aviation divisions of the Soviet and Russian Air Forces requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

1st New Zealand Ranger Company

Hi, the 1st New Zealand Ranger Company article was recently created by an editor with a record of both OK and not OK edits. Would you be able to review it for accuracy, and suggest some sources? I think that this was a real unit, but it's not clear what role it filled - was this a precursor to the commando company in the modern NZSAS? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty solid, Nick, and was commanded by Dave Gawn. My memory said it was Martyn Dunne, but if one searches one should find official bios of Gawn which will show his time in command. Seems solid - just completely from personal knowledge/OR!! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking here. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Few more fixes. If you read carefully, the directing staff of the *initial selection course* were all SAS; Gawn, the OC, and the CSM were RNZIR. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop stalking me

Stop stalking me: [25]. You have never edited this page before. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop making stupid comments; literally quoting off the page you linked "The use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned in the policy as the result of (linked) discussion." Who are you to question which pages I should or should not edit?

I have every right to use Special:Contributions as does anyone else, and I remain very concerned about your behaviour on this site. The Oregonian *is* a reliable source until someone says otherwise. The policy says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to).. correcting related problems on multiple articles": to wit, your misuse of sources (eg The Oregonian, here).

If you have concerns about *my* behaviour, cease with the WP:PERSONALATTACKS, and go through the regular process, such as an RfC. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure you just happened onto Baron 52, which you had never edited before, right. Your comment "I remain very concerned about your behaviour on this site" simply confirms your stalking. As you know I have gone through the regular process at ANI regarding your stalking and will do so again if necessary. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you *read* what I wrote, mate? I *specifically* told you I had *used* Special:Contributions, and I quoted the policy regarding the proper use of that tool. Now, to avoid further wasting of each others' time, I would kindly request you to file an RfC or other complaint at some appropriate page, should you actually so wish.

That would avoid you again having to tell me I've done stuff that I've already clearly said I've already done, in full conformity with this site's policies on WP:RELIABLESOURCES. You should be ashamed of yourself - is an average major city newspaper, such as The Oregonian, in the United States not a reliable source? Do you not think so? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Buddy I deleted the Vietnam prisoners of war category because Baron 52 is a conspiracy theory that 4 Americans were captured alive in Laos. The Oregonian is one source, while The Washington Post story debunks the story and the US Government position has always been that all 8 were killed in the crash, so there is no legitimate basis for including the category. Nothing for me to be ashamed of, unlike you with your continued stalking. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

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, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Informations about Estonian Land Forces

Good Evening Buckshot06,
Sorry to bother you, I am a contributor on Wikipedia in French and I am currently participating in WikiContest having chosen the Estonian armed forces as the theme.
I see that you have contributed by bringing many interesting elements concerning the history of the Estonian land forces, do you have by chance sources / references (internet link, book, etc ...) which could accompany this paragraph? These will probably be required to be able to offer the article to a label.
Sorry for my poor English, and thank you very much in any case for your contributions to this article. --Martin-78 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice of you to say hi Martin-78!! The data was probably drawn from the linked articles, the divisional articles, the Scouts Single Infantry Battalion, the Estonian Armed Forces article etc. What references exist will be there. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this valuable information! Do not hesitate if someday you need. --Martin-78 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you get access to Freres armées, the African cooperation periodical of the Ministere des Armées? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roberts International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

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

1st Guards Mechanized Corps (Soviet Union)

added a link pointing to Chita

Second Sudanese Civil War

added a link pointing to Akobo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Corps of Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:Corps of Spain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cites in List of infantry regiments of the Army National Guard from 1959

The article cites a bunch of {{sfn}} notes without a corresponding source listed in bibliography. For example: Wilson 1999, Stubbs & Connor 1972, Pope & Kondratiuk 1995, Balkowski 1991, etc. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Spanish regiments

1. es:Anexo:Regimientos de Infantería de España
2. es:Anexo:Regimientos de Caballería de España
3. this is a booklet with all the regimental histories of the Spanish infantry

noclador (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

1st Army (Czechoslovakia)

@Buckshot06: Would you be interested in writing more about the Czechoslovakian 1st Army during the Cold War, in the article 1st Army (Czechoslovakia), with me?CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help. To centralize everything about the formation at one place, I have answered at the article talk page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austrian Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mautern.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territorial Army.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1st Dumbartonshire Rifle Volunteers

Hi! I could do with some advice. I had some additional material on the 54th and 58th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiments that I was going to add to the article on their parent unit, 1st Dumbartonshire Rifle Volunteers, later 9th Battalion Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders. As I recall, this was quite a good article, but when I tried to check I found that it had been deleted due to some serious transgression by the contributor. A month later it has not been reinstated. I have the usual sources to re-create a page for these units: the question is, should I go ahead and do so? I'm not sure of the protocol in this sort of case! RegardsRickfive (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and feel free to recreate a new page. You're an editor in good standing. If there are gaps in your data, and you remember extra data that you want from the deleted page that you can source, you can ask an admin for access to the deleted page data as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ref Turkish corps

There is new 4 commando brigades established in Turkey i cant find english source for it expect this https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2018/08/17/four-new-commando-brigades-and-military-appointments-in-turkey/ other sources are in Turkish thanks Cengizsogutlu (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerning user:Cengizsogutlu

See here. Said editor was warned for PAs, edit warring, and accusations of racism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kansas Bear, understood. It appears that the user cannot in fact point me to many more reliable sources about the composition of the 9th Corps (Turkey), and I will bear your concerns in mind. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Re your reply to David Fuchs

Hello. I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. I have moved your reply to David Fuchs was moved into your statement. In sectioned discussion at ArbCom, like in case requests, replies should be made in your own section. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive advice

Hey; how do you get a bot to do archiving like you manage on this page? I’ve looked around, but can’t seem to get a read on it. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at my talkpage history? Check User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at the source and tried to copy over some of it. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Yes that's unusual behaviour for me. I am totally sick and tired of Mztourist's string of revenge comments at various AfDs. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Buckshot06 what "string of revenge comments at various AfDs"? If you have a valid basis for complaint you know the relevant channels. If not then your comment is another personal attack on me per NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Noclador's Sandbox Army 2020 Article

I was given permission to edit, not you so don't revert me there. you can edit the main List of units and formations of the British Army 2020 article. That is all. Don't reply on my talk page. BlueD954 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear BlueD954, I find it hard to try to respond without appearing to imply some negative things about you; I'm sorry. (a) I saw no evidence that you asked permission to edit Noclador's userpage; I don't see why you have to be rigid about inclusion of the Infantry Arms Director and SASC; I find your repeated rudeness *extremely* offputting, and clearly some others did as well, otherwise there wouldn't have been a change of username from Sammartinlai; I am distressed by your reaction to my proving you wrong, when the reason I had to prove you wrong was that you made a reactionary, off-the-cuff, and stupid statement to the effect that the 2020 Army Reserve units weren't able to be proved notable - for heaven's sake man, you know units get covered in the press all the time!!

Basically, while we have some disagreements on style and focus, mostly I find your rudeness and terseness very offputting. Please, try to slow down, and be more polite - WP:CIVIL. RegardsBuckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It is you who is rude; I made no capitalisation unlike you with your friend J-Man11. You call me silly so there. I don't have to give you evidence about Noclador and me talking.BlueD954 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't say heaven sake - that insults the Lord God!BlueD954 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Noclador did give permission in this thread but both of you need to stay civil. Kges1901 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. 16 (Polish) Flying Training School RAF

Hello,

In my No. 16 (Polish) Flying Training School RAF article my book by Alan Lake mentions "No. 25 (Polish) Elementary Flying Training School" but doesn't actually have a section on it other than what's in the Wikipedia article already.

Do you have any information on No. 25 (Polish) Elementary Flying Training School ? Gavbadger (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. My best guess -- if you're interested -- would be to go to the best remaining accessible source, National Archives, Kew, or write to Air Historical Branch. AHB should be able to find something, but if you guys are out of lockdown over there Kew might turn up one or two things. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Royal Air Force groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation Matador.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for direct e-mail contact

81.103.72.90 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Buckshot06 - Please e-mail 255 Squadron Association <office@255.org.uk>. Two subjects to discuss: From WW1, Robert Cholerton Hayes OBE. From WW2, Russian front 1944, area just north of the River Danube opposite village/river port of Ram.

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Dear friend, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Георгий Палкин (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Дорогой друг с наступающим Рождеством и Новым Годом! Забыл поставить подпись SORRRY Георгий Палкин (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Craig Air Force Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page L3.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

About nothing

Dear Buckshot06, I want to ask Your name, becouse I feel uncomfortable contacting to Your pseudonym. Sorry Георгий.Георгий Палкин (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Giorgi, not possible. But feel free to e-mail me at the link on the left ("e-mail this user"). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Phillippines equipment list

A long while back you deleted List of equipment of the Philippine Commonwealth Army due to it being filled with dubious stuff. It seems to have risen from the dead as List of weapons of the Philippine Commonwealth Army complete with Citation needed tags from 2014. I've asked the creator where they found the text as it may be something they found on the internet without being aware of the origins. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D can you assist? I am no longer an administrator. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's potentially a valid article but just at moment with hoax content. May not need administrative removal; I've been going through it and removing anything that started with a Cite Needed, and I'll excise anything that looks dubious. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just re-deleted it as it remained full of hoax content. The person who created it was a total fraudster, and absolutely nothing they ever added can be assumed to be accurate. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked on some of this person's other edits, and they are systematically fraudulent. I've blocked them, and am reverting their edits. @GraemeLeggett: FYI, and thanks again for raising this. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kenya Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Hardinge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

A few days ago, I suggested a merger of 51st Troop Carrier Wing with 551st Electronic Systems Wing. If you look at the 51st Wing article you will see why I think there's no reason to keep it as a separate article, and I do not change my usual position that one article on a USAF unit is quite enough. I usually regard folks who oppose rational mergers as obstructionists.

As I usually do, while the merger suggestion is pending, I try to improve the merge to site. In this case, I am starting to wonder whether separate articles are more appropriate. My work in the 551st AEW&C Wing and 551st Electronic Systems Wing is basically complete (a couple of citations might be added). But as I started to flesh out the 51st Troop Carrier Wing portion of the unit's history, I begin to wonder. I don't want an opinion now, but take a look at what only covers the first seven month's of the wing's history. I expect there will be at least as much material associated with Operation Husky. I'm not sure I'll be able to locate the source material, but there will be some material on the 51st Wing's fading into European Air Transport during the occupation as well. I'll ping you when things are complete, but right now I'm considering a post on the MILHIST talk page for opinions on the merger. Any comments? --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The applicable rule is WP:SIZERULE. Now roughly up to 64 kb of usable text size is allowable, or even more; the two articles are 3kb and 28kb respectively. You could double the usable text size -- not the total text size that you see on the history page -- before a non-split would be appropriate. The only thing you should inquire about at Milhist is which iteration of the unit is more notable, the 51 TCW or the 551 AWACS Wing, or (very unlikely) the 551 ESW. Probably they will say the 51 TCW should be the name at the top. Cheers and belated Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments on merge?

I may be missing something, so before I do anything would you mind looking at [26] Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Royal Air Force training units

A tag has been placed on Category:Royal Air Force training units requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for your acknowledgement of my efforts. Best wishes.

Dear friend! Happy February 23 - Red Army day! Георгий Палкин (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bomber aviation divisions of the Soviet and Russian Air Forces

A tag has been placed on Category:Bomber aviation divisions of the Soviet and Russian Air Forces requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

86th GRD

Hey, Buckshot. You may have noticed I'm back to work on this article. Hope to get those stub and insufficient sources notifications removed soon. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. I recently saw Military-industrial complex article and recent addition of content from animal-industrial complex article based on one book where it is claimed about that two are connected or the same. So as things need to get wide acceptance and recognition to be added at wikipedia, and this is not place for advocacy or promotion of thought to get some attention as I understood about Wikipedia. I opened talk page discussion too at that Talk:Military–industrial complex#Recently added content. Please, as one editor with a lot of experience can you check? Would be great. Thank you. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

160th Rifle Division

Hey, Buckshot06. Looking for your advice on this division. The first 160th was formed in 1940 and was mostly destroyed in September 1941. However a cadre managed to survive, was rebuilt and returned to the front in December. Meanwhile the number was reassigned in error to the 6th Moscow Militia Division so that for about 18 months there were two 160th Rifle Divisions serving concurrently until the 1940 formation became the 89th Guards RD in April 1943. IMO these require two separate articles because neither can be considered a "1st" or "2nd" formation. I'm suggesting one article entitled "160th Rifle Division (1940 formation)" and a second article entitled "160th Rifle Division (1941 formation)". This will require an addition to the "Soviet Union divisions before 1945" template, possibly "160th(a)" and "160th(b)". Your thoughts? Wreck Smurfy (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

160th Rifle Division

Hey, Buckshot06. Looking for your advice on this division. The first 160th was formed in 1940 and was mostly destroyed in September 1941. However a cadre managed to survive, was rebuilt and returned to the front in December. Meanwhile the number was reassigned in error to the 6th Moscow Militia Division so that for about 18 months there were two 160th Rifle Divisions serving concurrently until the 1940 formation became the 89th Guards RD in April 1943. IMO these require two separate articles because neither can be considered a "1st" or "2nd" formation. I'm suggesting one article entitled "160th Rifle Division (1940 formation)" and a second article entitled "160th Rifle Division (1941 formation)". This will require an addition to the "Soviet Union divisions before 1945" template, possibly "160th(a)" and "160th(b)". Your thoughts? Wreck Smurfy (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's stick to the WP:RELIABLE sources. Unless the Russian sources use the terms '1941 formation' or 'a' or 'b', we should not. Create 160th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) for the 1940 formation, write a meaty referenced paragraph in that article explaining the error and additional assignment of the designation to the 6th Moscow People's Militia Division (for which is easily fixed, leave it at 89th Guards Rifle Division, final and no doubt most famous, notable designation, with a paragraph in that article explaining that the 160th (1940 fmn) was serving alongside for a while). I remember noticing this in the BSSA lists: if I remember rightly, the two divisions were in separate Fronts, which no doubt cut down on the possibility for confusion. The only issue is WP's obsession with templates: which would look like : 160 (1940-whenever it was), linking to 160 RD (SU), and 160 (1941-43), linking to 89 GRD. Needs to be a redirect and link for 6 Moscow PMD, but that links straight to 89 GRD.

Have you fossicked around Russian WP or other sources to see how they handle it? There are official USSR documents, which I've seen but seem not to have downloaded, listing all the divisions. How do they list it? We should follow their lead, and only use the solution above if they don't properly refer to it, or their solution is unmanageably complicated. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally, thoughts Kges1901, who has looked more closely at the source material than me? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've found both the official Russian document, the Perecheni No. 5 which lists the rifle divisions, and the way Russian WP has done it. The official Russian document you can see here at http://www.teatrskazka.com/Raznoe/Perechni_voisk/Perechen_05_01.html, and the two divisions are just listed sequentially in order of formation, without the use of 'I' or 'II' but just with the annotation of the Fronts they fought in. Meanwhile Russian WP lists the first-formed division as 'Gorkovskaya' (where the division was formed) and the second-formed as 'formed 1941'. You can see that by jumping over to the Russian companion category of Category:Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union in World War II and scrolling thru until you reach 160 (somebody has now helpfully lined them up in numerical order). Suggest we follow Russian WP and use 'Gorkovskaya' and 'formed 1941', though if we can avoid the second one and simply use pipelinks for 89 GRD that would be better. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Allied forces in the Normandy campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 6th Guards Tank Brigade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note

One of the revisions you made way back in 2008 to Ladder moved copyright-violating material from another article, Assault Ladder (now redirects to Escalade). The content was removed as such. It's extremely old, but just letting you know as a courtesy! Sennecaster (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malawian Defence Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salima.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Infantry regiments of the Confederate States Army

A tag has been placed on Category:Infantry regiments of the Confederate States Army indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Hey Buckshot, check your email. Thanks - wolf 23:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I received your message. I am almost at a loss for what to do, but I might as well try what you suggest. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I noticed. Lemme know if I can be of any help. Cheers - wolf 06:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (not you lol)

Hey Buckshot! Thought this may interest you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28. Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Do you mind if I give you an unofficial, mini-mentoring barnstar? ⭐ (← that would be it)

It appears our young friend didn't get around to asking for a mentor, but you seem to have to stepped in and are giving him the solid guidance he needs. You deserve a pat on the back. Cheers mate - wolf 08:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 651 Squadron AAC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mechanized Brigade (Portugal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M47.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MoD Caledonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Ramsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stonewalling_a_merge_6_months_after_AfD. Calton | Talk 03:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

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

55th Naval Infantry Division

added a link pointing to Pacific Fleet

7th Air Defence Group

added a link pointing to 1st Artillery Brigade

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Question(s)

Hey Buckshot, I noticed you asked if someone, anyone, would close the t-ban proposal you posted at AN, 3 or 4 days ago, and still nothing. It should be a fairly straight-forward close, the consensus seems to be there, and even the subject supports it himself. (I'm surprised Peacemaker67 hasn't stepped in... maybe he's tied up with other stuff, either WP or RL right now?) Anyway, I have nothing against the kid, but I see the problems seem to continue, as do your frustrations. This isn't fair to anyone involved.

Question I have is; Have you considered posting at WP:CR? Just curious. If there's anything I can do to help, just let me know, eh?

Oh, and one more question; I noticed that many of the posts here on your tp don't have signatures. Is that on purpose? (Perhaps an archiving thing?) Anyway, I'm gonna sign this comment, but feel free to remove the signature if you need to. Cheers mate - wolf 11:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Buckshot06. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ack. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

486th Fighter Squadron

I just removed a bunch of stuff from this page referring to the 21st Fighter Squadron, but it got me to reviewing some related material. My thoughts are at talk:486th Fighter Squadron. It strikes me that if we are to include revoked actions, what would we do with 354th Operations Group and 117th Operations Group, in which an 8 year old allotment to the National Guard and redesignation was revoked. Not many people realize that until the 1960s or so, the US military ran the telephone system in Alaska. About 20 years after it was civilianized, the Air Force realized that Alaskan Communications System was a unit and inactivated it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th Aero Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Buckshot06, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Air units and formations of the French Army

A tag has been placed on Category:Air units and formations of the French Army indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Armies of NATO's Central Front by David Isby

Howdy,

I noticed that quite a few years ago, you referenced some information to this work. Do you still have access to it?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Which particular information from it are you looking for? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if it outlined how the British Army of the Rhine would be reinforced, in the event of war.

I know it was wrote after the British 2nd Division ceased to exist in Germany, but I was hoping it would explain the process. In the article, I sourced and wrote that the division was around 8,600 strong, but in the event of war would be increased to 14,000. I believe the remaining divisions in the BAOR in the mid-80s would have followed the same method of reinforcing. Some things I have read, seem to suggest Territorial Army personnel and reservists, coming over as reinforcements from the UK, would just bring existing units within the division up to full strength; and that it would not be the case of battalions being attached to the existing divisions. For example, I found that the only major formation that would go over to Germany (in the late 70s) was No.7/7th Field Force with five battalions, to act as a reserve to the existing divisions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

AONCF describes only the situation after the dissolution of the four-small-divisions organisation in detail. It briefly says that there were four small divisions but the reinforcement picture is described for after the small divisions, that is, when 2nd Division was an infantry reinforcing division in the UK. It talks about Exercises Lionheart and Full Flow for example, the reinforcing exercises, but those were in the late 1980s.

I would suggest you take a look at Graham Watson & Richard A. Rinaldi : The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947–2004, Tiger Lily Publications LLC 2005.

After the reversion to three armoured divisions & 2ID, the best guide to the reinforcing arrangements is probably Vieuxbill, "The British Army of the Rhine in 1989," first external link in BAOR article; briefly there were hordes of miscellaneous TA infantry battalions (eg 8 QF as the Lance regiment guard battalion) mostly for rear areas; 19th Brigade in 4 Division; 2 Division; the very late formed Parachute Regiment Group earmarked for 1 Armd Division; all kinds of regular CSS; and hordes of TA CSS, not so much CS (an artillery regiment each in 15 & 49 Brigades, several AD regiments).

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1976-05-06a.1508.1 is useful for the brief and unlamented field forces. 8 FF -> 5 AB Bde; I believe 6 FF -> 1 Inf Bde/UKMF. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

5 FF from 24 Inf Bde, but in Germany; 6 FF formed from HQ 16 Para Bde; 7 FF formed from HQ 19 Inf Bde; 8 FF from HQ 5 Inf Bde, all formed 1977 and disbanded 1982: 5 FF-> back to Catterick as 24 Inf Bde; others back to 1 IB Tidworth; 5 Aldershot, 19 Colchester (Watson and Rinaldi, 125).

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1988-01-26a.181.0&s=%222nd+Infantry+Division%22#g181.2 - 1988 Hansard. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate the assistance. I found Watson and Rinaldi's work to be very interesting when I have skimmed it in the past, but I believe it is frowned upon as being a bit of a self-published source, or one from an unknown publisher and for a website?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is a semi-SPS, orbat.com/Tiger Lily not having much of a presence; yes it appears to be solid and reliable, check Watson and Rinaldi's biographies at the end. I quote from it extensively on pages all over the place. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Army units and formations of Australia by size

Hello,

this title for a category is a bit of a misnomer for the Australian Defence Force. This term would be rejected by the Australian Defence Forces. Is there any opportunity to rename this category to something more apppropriate, such as Order of Battle (or the like)? --Whiteguru (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't a misnomer. I have grouped the units & formations of the Australian Army by the standard-designation sizes. That's the sizes used by similar British-origin armies worldwide, and categories are named that way worldwide. It's a cross-category intended to link all army units and formations of Australia into Category:Army units and formations by size and should have been done years ago. The standard subdividers for army units and formations are by type (Category:Army units and formations by type) size; by war (Category:Army units and formations by war); and by country, for which I am subdividing the Australian army entries.

Wikipedia is not the ADF (WP:NOT) and we do not categorize by what the ADF might or might not think about our internal organization. I'd also be very surprised if you could get any ADF person-in-authority to reject this category name in writing!!

'Order of battle' would actually *reduce* the level of specificity, and we're trying to *increase* it, to categorize *more precisely!!*

If you have concerns with the military units and formations categorization scheme as a whole, would encourage you to review WP:MILMOS and then make a post at WT:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algerian War French order of battle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ohio Army National Guard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Berlin Crisis and Camp Polk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

RAF Little Walden page deletion

Hello Buckshot06 I see from the deletion log that you removed the page with the history of RAF Little Walden (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAF_Little_Walden&action=edit&redlink=1) due to some sort of copyright infringement I would like to get the page reinstated but would like to determine the detailed reason for removal so that I could see if this could be resolved. Please can you help? This is a personal matter to me as I live on the former airfield site and it is a real shame the history of the airfield is no longer available to remind Wikipedia readers the sacrifice made by the airmen based there during World War II Many thanks Chris147.161.166.184 (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted as part of cleanup after Bwmoll3's massive copyright infringements. See Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819 and User_talk:Bwmoll3 at the top. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See subpage 8. Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130819_8. Basically Bwmoll3 was copying wholesale out of many, many books on a wide range of USAF / USAAF linked subjects, and because it's very difficult to determine which books he copied from, administrators were given permission to delete on a wholesale basis. You are entirely free to recreate the article, but it will have to be done from (well-referenced) scratch. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-Afghan Armed Forces

I understand what you are saying with it being the general history of the Afghan Army, there is however already a page about the Military of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and I think it would be redundant to make another.

Do you know how many subpages there are under United States Armed Forces? Under British Armed Forces? Even under History of the British Army? I have to say I do not agree. But if you want to put forward that view as an argument, please do add it to Talk:Afghan Armed Forces as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

An observation about pages created by an "old acquaintance":

It occurred to after doing some basic cleanup on some pages created by Mr. Moll. (I'm sure you still have an occasion to visit his work). I have noticed something about his use of clearly public domain sites (particularly the two Maurer editions). In the "Stations" section for squadrons, he appears to have cut and pasted not from the appropriate entry in Combat Squadrons, but instead from the parent group entry in Combat Units. If you find yourself editing one of his works, take a close look in the dates in the "Stations" section. Particularly during World War II, it was common for groups to move piecemeal, so station dates for squadrons are frequently a day or a few days from those of the group (which he used). If you look at my station markup for 381st Bombardment Squadron, you can see how many dates I had to change. Not something I checked when I first started editing Wiki — I pretty much assumed he had cut and pasted from the approppriate location. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, man, I never meant to bother you, believe me, I'm the one who's upset. Overall, I'm so sorry if I unintentionally offended you, and I won't do it again.

I'm sorry, man, I never meant to bother you, believe me, I'm the one who's upset. Overall, I'm so sorry if I unintentionally offended you, and I won't do it again. Spinwispy (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Third Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page III Tactical Air Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chief of General Staff (Afghanistan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazar Mohammed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Long Marston Airfield and RAF Long Marston

Hello,

Since Long Marston airfield has been closed down with housing starting to completely cover the site i don't see the point of having both an article for the RAF history (RAF Long Marston) and the civilian post war (Long Marston Airfield so i want to merge them together.

What would you suggest that article to be called?

Over the last year, the airfield page seems to be getting double the page views per month even though it's poorly referenced compared to the RAF article, with the airfield now being defunct i don't know which article name to keep.

Gavbadger (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of very stubby military and civilian airfield articles which are too short to exist separately and should be merged. There's not enough information for two separate articles. These should all be merged at their most recent name (WP:MILMOS#BASENAME) and in this case the best name is Long Marston Airfield, as it is the most recent. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have apologized to you before my brother and I repeat my apologies but please

I have apologized to you before my brother and I repeat my apologies but please.

Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail's memoirs are available online, written before his death and published by his family in 2013, including the Battle of the Green Island Blomus 6 Nestschats (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou Nestschats; I accept your apology. Regarding the Battle of the Green Island (Egypt), Operation Bulmus 6, Can you link Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail's memoirs, in whatever language? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army Air Service

A tag has been placed on Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army Air Service indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soviet Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polyarny.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks at List of Royal Air Force aircraft independent flights

Hello,

I've been updating the List of Royal Air Force aircraft independent flights adding active dates (by year) and what happened to the unit after disbanding. Their is now a large amount of redlinks in the articles and i want to remove them. One idea is to create the redirect and link back to the list and correct section then remove the link on the list page, but i wanted your opinion first.

Also i want your views on whether dividing up the "Numbered flights RAF 1940 on" and "Miscellaneous Flights" sections by type would be a good idea.

Gavbadger (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Start with the flights that never once moved bases, like the ASR Flight Hawkinge there listed (similar in some ways to OTUs that never moved). List them in the article, sure, but with no links of any kind except to the station, like RAF Hawkinge. Place all the details at the station article, and link the station only. So no redirect is justified, because a reader goes straight to the station article. Once you've done all that, come back to me, would be my thought, and we can work through the next step(s). Buckshot06 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Armoured Brigade (France), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allemagne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know

These 39.41.xx.xx IP's[27] whom you had run-ins with several months ago, are in all likelihood operated by LTA Lagoo sab.[28] Thought you might be interested. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Posted the same message at John B123's talk page.[29] Drmies you, likewise, might be interested to know that Wikipedia's "professional writer"(2017) is still at it. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Has the Pakistan Frontier website been vetted at RSN? It doesn't make the IP less problematic but it's important for us. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon, it's really a huge range but CU is useless here, to me anyway. I can see some evidence that this is most likely our editor, but it may be better to add these to the SPI and ask an experienced editor to see if a rangeblock is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Drmies happy to take the 'Pakistan Frontier' question to RSN. I do not believe it has been raised. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--I appreciate that. That's the kind of thing that really improves our project. I can run around and place a million blocks, but this is much more important than that. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Created a SPI for the record.[30] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)