User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 27

Spartan 3000

Hi, Sorry to keep you waiting.

I received the official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps about Spartan 3000.

Please visit take page.

Thanks Footwiks (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Uploading into Wikimedia Commons is good solution. But I think that it will take much time. two-track strategy is needed.

So I opened the case in the Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Please leave your opinions.

I really appreciate your support.

Footwiks (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks, there is nothing Wolf can do whatsoever if VRT deems that your letter from the ROKMC is genuine. I would urge you to focus on the VRT process, and wait for that outcome. There is no particular urgency; we're not working to any deadline. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, There is other solution.

I can request to move my answer to open bulletin board in the petition website.

It needs approval process and It'll take much time.

But we're not working to any deadline.

Thanks again. Have a nice weekend.

Footwiks (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks (1) I suggest you go ahead with the Korean WP:VRT process, because it's an additional piece of information to add, brings additional references; but also (2) often it may be a good idea to focus on something else while a separate issue is taking longer. Happy to help you with the Structure of the ROK Army in the meantime. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English. What is the wolf's point of compromise?

Wolf's comment is always too long and everytime he included the Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines in the comment.

I guessed wolf's compromise

(1) Agree on removal "Spartan 3000" in the List of military special forces units.

(2) Hope to Keep below prose in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps

In March 2016, the South Korean defense ministry announced the formation of a Quick Maneuver Force (nickname: "Spartan 3000", size - regiment consisting of 3,000 of South Korean marines.)

Do I understand that correctly?

What do you think of wolf's compromise?

Footwiks (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not worried about your level of English at all, whatsoever. Imagine me trying to talk to you in Korean through G-Translate!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it needs a wording change:

"In March 2016, the KMOD announced that each regiment of the 2nd Marine Division would hold the designation of QMF (nicknamed "Spartan 3000" by [insert source] [insert source]) in rotation. The QMF was tasked with [whatever the task was, quote most authoritative source]. In [month] [year] the Quick Maneuver Force gained an official ROKMC nickname, the Jeseung Unit (제승부대) ("Guarantee Victory") Unit."[ref] Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

(1) I polished the prose.

"In March 2016, the Ministry of National Defense announced that the three subordinate regiments of the 1st Marine Division would hold the designation of Quick Maneuver Force (QMF, nicknamed "Spartan 3000"(source) in rotation. The QMF was tasked with deployment to all parts of the Korean Peninsula within 24 hours.(source)

In May 2016 the Quick Maneuver Force gained an official ROKMC nickname, the Jeseung Unit (제승부대) ('제승' means Guarantee Victory) (source)

But your Summary of dispute in Dispute resolution noticeboard is very good. I think it is enough.

(2) I refused the wolf's compromise. see talk page. Footwiks

Thanks againFootwiks (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks, you *cannot* game the system. Whether you like Thewolfchild's opinions or not, he is a user in good standing and you *must* place templates on his talkpage when starting WP:DR. Also, if you ever use WP:ANI, you *must* also place a template on the other user's talk page.

Now I have to go back to Wolf and apologise to him for backing you so consistently -- when you are not following the rules!

Trying to leave anyone out of a WP discussion does not help. If you get your preferred version of content when the key opponent to your views has been left out, they have every right to restart a discussion -- and you start that second discussion get a black mark against you. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake. As you know, My English is poor, I didn't understand the detailed rule and procedure about Wikipedia:DR thoroughly.

But I think you're misunderstanding the situation, In my defence,

To discusssion start, When I left a message on wolf's talk page in May, He seems to be angry.

Especially When I left a message about ROKMC answer at wolf's talk page, he left a message at my talk page.

Wolf's message as follows

Talk pages... again

I've aleady mentioned watchlists to you before, but again... the List of military special forces units article, and it's associated talk page, are on my watchlist. As such, it is not necessary for you to post a notice on my user talk page everytime you want me to see an edit you've made to that article, or it's talk page (the one we've had the very, very lengthy discussion on already), I will see it automatically when I check my watchlist. So please, unless it's for a different and valid reason, please stop posting these messages to my user talk page. They simply are not necessary. Thank you - wolf 13:36, 9 June 2023

I just don't want to make him angry and I guessed that If I left a notice on talk page in List of military special forces units, Wolf can perceive notice due to Wolf's watchlist.

As you know, I really left a notice in on talk page of List of military special forces units at 06:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC).

• Please check out article history

Then I noticed to you at 06:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC), In conclusion, I noticed to wolf first, then I noticed to you.

Wolf answered "Fair enough (though I thought you had already done that) at 06:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC).

Therefore, I thought that wolf perceived the opening of case on DRN.

That's all. I sincerely did not try to leave wolf out of a WP discussion and It isn't worth it.

Swear to god, I absolutely did not game the system.

User with good knowledge of Wikipedia Rule can game the system.

I don't have good knowledge of Wikipedia Rule (including using various templates)

Wolf said to me:

After you go through all the trouble of validating your response from ROKMC, and if it is accepted, that is still just a single point of primary source information. The entry is supported by four secondary sources. If you read the guideline WP:PST, you'll see that secondary sources are the preferred type of sourcing of content on WP.

I felt that thewolfchild used knowledge about Wikipedia Rule in order to nitpick and game the system.

If you didn't advice about VRT Process, I would've been in serious trouble.

Buckshot06~ Please put yourself in my position.

If you will discuss in Korean Wikipedia through Korean Language with South Koreans, You can make a mistake and your action will be clumsy.

Wolf is an English native speaker and he have a good knowledge of Wikipedia Rule. I had a handicap.

So I asked many users for help. But as you know, WP discussion is very stressful and take a lot of time to discuss.

Therefore, Many users ignored my help. I understand them.

But Only you helped me. I really really really appreciate your support.

Especially, When you mentioned to Wolf "Knock it off!! You are getting down this guy's throat when he is sincerely trying to provide better data - whether or not we could use it~~"

I am deeply touched.

I know it's being shameless but I really hope to you continuously back me in this dispute.

But You can't. It's OK.

Thank you for everything you've done for me. I remember your support.

Kind regards

Footwiks (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course I will continue to back you. You appear to be in the right. You just have to triple-check that you notify everybody as carefully as possible. Yes, secondary sources are preferred, but an official response to an information request supersedes everything - I hope Wolf will see that. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

I don't worry about single primary source problem.

We have so many secondary reliable sources and you added them at Source annex on DRN.

Yesterday, I found a newest source.

• 인터뷰 - 임성근 해병대 제1사단장 from Newsis published published on 9 June 2023

Interview with commander of ROKMC 1st Marine Division - Major general Lim Seong-geun.

사단의 2개 여단이 합동참모본부로부터 지정돼 임무를 수행하는 '해병대 신속기동부대'는 기동전력을 상시 편조해 어떠한 지역으로도 신속하게 출동할 수 있는 태세를 갖춘다.

(Translation: 2 brigades undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is capable of fast deployment outside anywhere.)

As you rightly pointed out, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is still the rotational tasking.

I have a personal question. Are you American?

Footwiks (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Check my user page, mate. I am from Aotearoa New Zealand. Look at that flag at User:Buckshot06. User:Nick-D from across the ditch keeps me straight sometimes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, You are a kiwi. I thought that you are an American. My best foreign friend is a New Zealander. He worked as an English teacher at English Academy in Seoul, South Korea. I have been to Australia butI haven't been to New Zealand, Next time I'd love to go New Zealand.Footwiks (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Just be a bit careful ;) The "a" is important, unless you want to go to the Netherlands!! :) ;)

Buckshot06 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be careful. Footwiks (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Structure of the ROK Army

Anyways, I owed you a lot until 11 June and I promised you. So ASAP, I'll complete the Structure of the ROK Army.

But through this disuccussion, I deeply disappointed about English Wikipedia.

English Wikipedia prefer to old secandary source that newst South Korean Government Official Statement. I felt that there is a Western supremacy in English Wikipedia.

Even though I created the article about South Korean military, In the near future, Article will have wrong information by Western secondary sources with false information and translation error.

Do you know this User:Gasiseda This use is also South Korean with expertise of South Korean military. Please check out his user introduction.

He also pointed out the problem of western sources about South Korean Military.

I really thank you for your interest in South Korean Military. And I really collaborate to work with you about South Korean Military,

But I don't want to waste my precious time and also I hope to you don't waste your precious time due to South Korean military article in English Wikipedia.

Thank you for everything you've done for me. Good bye. Footwiks (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Spartan 3000 - 2

Thanks for your advice on talkpage at List of special force units and DRN.

But I have something to tell you. Honestly, I'm very embarrassed. Since 12 June, You suddenly apologize to wolf due to my trivial mistake about DRN procedure and You begin to support wolf's opinion.

When I showed the ROKMC official answer, You strongly adviced VPT process and You said to me - there is nothing Wolf can do whatsoever if VRT deems that your letter from the ROKMC is genuine. I would urge you to focus on the VRT process, and wait for that outcome.

But now, You mentioned that secondary sources win out on DRN.

Maybe 2~3 weeks later, We can see ROKMC Official Answer at Public Bulletin Board in the South Korean Government Petition/Question Website, In other words, Verifiability issue will be solved.

4 western secondary sources about 'Spartan 3000' were published in 2016 and 2017. As you know the truth, 'Spartan 3000' was just used in March 2016.

Most South Korean Military Units are not notable, I created the 1st Special Forces Brigade (South Korea). But some user attached the deletion template due to notibility.

I mean, There are few western secondary sources about South Korean Military Units. But Most of the few western secondary sources have wrong informations or translation errors.

We can't find the secondary sources including follow sentences. "'Spartan 3000' is not a Special Force Unit or ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not a Special Force Unit.

Because,

• Firstly. they are not a United States Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Green Beret, they are not notable unit. So there are not secondary sources with detailed informations.

• Secondly, Truth is that "'Spartan 3000' was a just provisional working title or ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is a Just Rapid reaction force / Rapid deployment force

Have you seen the below sentences in secondary sources about United States Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Green Berets,

• United States Navy SEALs is not a normal infantry unit
• Delta Force is not a normal infantry unit
• Green Berets is not a normal infantry unit.

In the news article, Upper descriptions are very awkward. Every reportes don't use these descriptions. I hope that you understand what I mean.

In this situation, How do I find the secondary sources including below sentence?

"'Spartan 3000' is not a Special Force Unit or ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not a Special Force Unit.

Therefore, In order to correct wrong information, I in person inquired and received official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps.

In this situation, Single primary source issue is not a problem.

By the way, Let's think about Wolf's compromise? Entry on the list, Name change - Spartan 3000 => ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE.

I have a question. Why do we only include only ROKMC's Rapid reaction force / Rapid deployment force?

Do you agree that all Rapid reaction force / Rapid deployment force, such as ROK 2nd Quick Response Division, US Marine expeditionary unit and so on include on list of the Special Force Unit?

• FYI, There is a list about Rapid reaction force / Rapid deployment force units in the Rapid reaction force article .

In conclusion, Task of Rapid reaction force is considered to be a special operation in English Wikipedia.

Buckshot06~~ You do not support my opinion any more, It's OK. I'll accept that But I hope that you try to stay neutral. Until 11 June, You absolutely support that Spartan 3000 or ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE have to be removed on the list. Becuase they are not unit. they are just rotational tasking.

Honesltly, I don't understand why you modifid your opinion.

Anyways, Well, I've enjoyed working with you. Thanks for your support until 11 June.Footwiks (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I support you, Footwiks. But I *cannot* change the rules for you. If anyone wants to change the rules, it takes years, 100s of editors and thousands of hours of consultation. I would like to be able to wave a magic wand and tell Wolf or anyone else to accept a WP:PRIMARY source when it is an official information response from a trusted government source (we would trust ROK Government; not Russian Government). But the rules say, do check them, that WP:SECONDARY sources - those newspaper articles - have higher WP:VERIFY value. They are more reliable. Do read the definitions, please.

So I support you and I believe what you are saying.

But I cannot write "let's accept a PRIMARY source" because any other editor would simply say "secondary sources outweigh primary" under our rules, and I would lose the argument.

If you argue for a primary source over four secondary sources, you will lose the final argument for wording on this site. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

But I had a also newest reliable secondary source.

• Interview with commander of ROKMC 1st Marine Division - Major general Lim Seong-geun from Newsis published on 9 June 2023

사단의 2개 여단이 합동참모본부로부터 지정돼 임무를 수행하는 '해병대 신속기동부대'는 기동전력을 상시 편조해 어떠한 지역으로도 신:속하게 출동할 수 있는 태세를 갖춘다.

Translation =>

2 brigades undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is capable of fast deployment outside anywhere.

• This article don't have any sentences as follows.

"ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is a Special Force Unit." or "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's main task is a special operations..."

As I explained,

We can't find the secondary sources including follow sentences.

'Spartan 3000' is not a Special Force Unit or ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not a Special Force Unit.

Have you seen below sentences in the secondary sources?

• United States Navy SEALs is not a normal infantry unit
• Delta Force is not a normal infantry unit
• Green Berets is not a normal infantry unit.

In secondary source announced: Delta Force is a Special Force Unit. Delta Force's task is Special Force Operations ....

In secondary source announced: ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is a Rapid deployment force and ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's task is the Rapid deployment for urgent.

These are normal descriptions. I have a secondary source to support ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is not a Special Force Unit.

Wolf also don't have any recent secondary sources including below sentence.

• "Spartan 3000 is a active Special Force Unit."
• "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is a Special Force Unit."
• "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's main task is a special operations..."

Why do you think that I will lose the final argument about primary and secondary source issue?

Anyways,

Moderator commented.

Should I put this moderated discussion on hold while we request opinions from the reliable source noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk)

So I commnetd.

OK, Let's hold here, Now I have a screenshot of South Korean government statement. But Maybe 2-3 weeks later,

We can see South Korean government statement at Public Bulletin Board in the South Korean Government Petition/Question Website.

Then Let's request opinions from the reliable source noticeboard?

Two weeks later, I hope to find solution at reliable source noticeboard.Footwiks (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you will be able to include Quick Manoeuver Force as a normal line ROKMC unit. That's fine, your reference does that.

But do you have a WP:SECONDARY source saying that "Spartan 3000" does not exist? Wolf want to retain "Spartan 3000." That's the remaining issue with your up to date primary source versus four old secondary sources.

As far as I can see, there is no secondary source saying "Spartan 3000 was an inaccurate nickname."

Yes, RSN is a good idea. Do get some third opinions there. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Formations and disbandments in the military units are very frequent.

Do you think that all units have the WP:SECONDARY source saying that "XXX unit" does not exist?

Only notable unit can have WP:SECONDARY source saying that "XXX unit" does not exist.

Wolf also don't have recent secondary sources saying that "Spartan 3000" is an active Special Force Unit. or "Spartan 3000" is an active nickname for ROKMC Unit.

As you know, Only based on secandary sources published in 2016 and 2017. Currently, "Spartan 3000" is an active Special Force Unit.

This is the original research.

If I meet the good users in RSN. I think that I can win.

Anyways, Due to this discussion, We wasted our precious energies. Let's have a break.

Take careFootwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Wolf's western sources

Hi, Yesterday, I throughly checked out Wolf's western sources. I read whole prose.

Remarkably, I founded the flaws of Wolf's western sources

I revealed that 2 Thewolfchild's western secondary sources (Telegraph and The diplomat) had translations errors or journalistic exaggeration issue. Telegraph and The Diplomat cited the Yonhap News Agency. But Original source from South Korean Yonhap News Agency didn't have any sentences saying "Spartan 3000" is a Special forces unit (특수부대) or that the main task of "Spartan 3000" was Special Operations (특수작전).

I also revealed the one of the rest secondary sources is not relevant sources about "Spartan 3000" (NY Time) and Nzherald source is full of errors. Reporter mistook "Spartan 3000" (based on the Telegraph) for ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade / Kim Jong Un Decapitation Unit (based on NY Times) then Reporter blended the "Spartan 3000" and "ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade (Decapitation Unit)" together in the article.

As you know, nickname "Spartan 3000" was discarded before May 2016.

Now, My sources are not important. All Wolf's western sources to support "Spartan 3000" is a Special Force Unit have flaws.

There are not any reasons to keep "Spartan 3000" on the list.

But your comment on DRN. honestly I dissapointed. Do you still think that I'll lose in this discussion?

I read the below sentence at WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

Your comment - Secondary sources win out. I don't agree on it. I already said that Wolf's western secondary sources had flaws.

I look forward to good editorial judgment and common sense at the reliable source noticeboard.

Anyways, ThanksFootwiks (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I have never found that particular rule!! Great!! I thought the SECONDARY versus PRIMARY judgment was immovable!! You might have a chance!! So you need to write in clear and easy English what the journalistic error problems were, and you can make your point *based on that sentence.* I'll help you. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Done some of that above. But do you have a source for saying the "Spartan 3000" nickname was discarded? That will be a key factor. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement.

ROKMC official answer said.

• Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'.

But this is the common sense

As I said before,

Except notable Military Unit, All secondary sources about military unit don't have detailed information.

For example.

Truth

• "Spartan 3000" nickname was discarded in April 2016
• "Jeseoung Unit" nickname was used since May 2016

Most secondary sources saying: ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's nickname is "Jeseoung Unit"

Most secondary sources not saying: ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force discarded "Spartan 3000" and ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force get a new nickname "Jeseoung Unit"

ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is not notable and ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's nickname history is not matter to press.

Most importantly, Wolf also don't have any sources saying the "Spartan 3000" nickname is active or still using.

Some stupid news outlet misunderstood that ROKMC still use "Spartan 3000" nickname in 2017

But Since 2018, We can't find any South Korean and Western reliable sources including "Spartan 3000" nickname.

Wolf's wrong western sources (2)

If you have a spare time, Please review my analysis. Can you understand my English explanation easily? Honestly, firstly I read the whole prose of Wolf's 4 Western sources thoroughly.

If you have any questions about my explanation, Please let me know, Can you polish my poor English?

• Analysis of 4 Western sources attached by Thewolfchild

Firstly South Korean sources about 'Spartan 3000' are published on 20 March 2016,

(1) Telegraph source (21 March 2016) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence - "according to the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap

(2) The Diplomat source (24 March 2016) - "The Diplomat source have a follow sentence - "a South Korean military official revealed to Yonhap News last Sunday."

But Below is the original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News (연합뉴스) published on 20 March 2016.

"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.

(Translation: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division on 1 March 2016.)

이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.

(Translation: dubbed 'Spartan 3000')

Original sources from South Korean Yonhap News didn't have any terms - "Special Force Unit (특수부대)" and "Special Operations (특수작전)",

But Telegraph and Diplomat source created terms "Special Force Unit (특수부대)" and Special Operations (특수작전)" in the article. They made a translation error or journalistic exaggeration issue.

(3) New York Times (12 September 2017) - NY Times source have a follow sentence - "the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a “decapitation unit”would be established by the end of the year." (If this article is about "Spartan 3000", How can ROKMC establish the unit by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already formed in March 2016.)

NY Times source was definitely not about the "Spartan 3000" and Most importantly, NY Times source didn't have term "Spartan 3000" and ROKMC

Actually, NY Times source cited this Korean source (4 September 2017)

송영무 "北지도부 참수작전 수행부대 12월1일 창설"

(Translations: Song Young-moo said that Decapitation Unit will be formed on 1 December 2017)

In conclusion: NY Times source was about the ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade / Decapitation Unit established by the end of the 2017.

For Check: On 1 December 2017, Officially, ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade reorganized as a Decapitation Unit (참수부대)

• Reference 1: Korean source (2 December 2017)

특수전사령부의 13 공수특전여단이 특수임무여단으로, 이른바 김정은 참수부대로 개편됐는데요.

(Translations: ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade in ROK Army Special Warfare Command reorganized as a Decapitation Unit (참수부대) for Kim Jong Un.)

• Reference 2: Korean source (4 December 2017)

충북 증평 흑표부대가 ‘김정은 참수부대 (Decapitation Unit for Kim Jong Un)

충북일보는 4일자 신문을 통해 충북의 향토부대인 증평 흑표부대(13공수특전여단 / ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade)가 유사시 북한 전쟁지도부 제거 임무 등을 수행사는 1000명 규모의‘특수임무여단'으로 개편됐다고 보도해 관심을 끌었다.

(Translations: 13rd Special Forces Brigade undertake task of Decapitation Unit for Kim Jong Un.)

(4) Nzherald (13 September 2017) - Nzherald source have a follow sentence - "according to UK newspaper the Telegraph" and "New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported" (NY Times source's report was also Choe Sang-Hun)"

This source is full of howlers. Reporter mistook "Spartan 3000" (cited Telegraph source) for ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade / Kim Jong Un Decapitation Unit (cited NY Times source) then Reporter blended the "Spartan 3000" and "Decapitation Unit" together in the article.

• Excerpt

Spartan 3000: South Korea's elite decapitation unit

New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported Seoul is using the unit to send a menacing message to Pyongyang.

He wrote it was rare for a government to announce a strategy to assassinate a head of state, but Seoul wants "to keep the North :on edge and nervous about the consequences of further developing its nuclear arsenal".

The unit is due to be fully established by the end of the year, according to the.

(If this article is about Spartan 30000, How can ROKMC fully establish unit by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already formed in March 2016 and actually, Decapitation Unit was formed in December 2017)

South Korean defence minister Song Young-moo said the unit could conduct cross-border raids, while re-tooled helicopters and :aircraft could also enter North Korean territory at night.

(cited Korean source (4 September 2017) - Song Young-moo (송영무) stated that Decapitation Unit will be formed on 1 December 2017)

In reality the unit is capable of much more than that.

SPARTAN 3000

The special force unit, which was first unveiled last year, can be deployed to any part of the Korean Peninsula within a day, :according to UK newspaper the Telegraph.

(5) In conclusion: firstly: NY Times source (4 September 2017) was not about the "Spartan 3000", secondly: Nzherald source :(13 September 2017) cited Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and NY Times source (7 September 2017) - Nzherald Reporter mistook Spartan 3000 for ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade / Decapitation Unit established by the end of 2017 then Reporter blended them together in the article.

Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and The Diplomat source (24 March 2016) cited South Korean Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스).

But Original Korean prose from article (20 March 2016) from [Yonhap News Agency|Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스)] didn't have any sentences - "Spartan 3000 is a Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation."

Telegraph and The Diplomat sources (published on March 2016) made a translation error or intentional journalistic exaggeration issue.

• Arrangement

Published	Sources	Flaws	Citation
2016-03-21	Telegraph	Translation error or intentional journalistic exaggeration	Original South Korean source from Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스) (2016-03-20)
2016-03-24	The Diplomat	Translation error or intentional journalistic exaggeration	Original South Korean source from Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스) (2016-03-20)
2017-09-12	New York Times	Not about "Spartan 3000" This source was about ROK Army 13rd Special Forces Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대)	Original South Korean source from Yonhap News Agenc (연합뉴스) (2017-09-04)
2017-09-13	Nzherald	Reporter mistook "Spartan 3000" for "Decapitation Unit (참수부대)" then blended "Spartan 3000" and "Decapitation Unit (참수부대)" together in the article.	Telegraph and New York Times.

Mate, sorry, you have sucked up a lot of my spare time in the last few days. I have explained all this in the fewest number of words I could manage at WP:DRN - you will see it there. I took your text and made it flow a bit more. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's OK. I understand what you mean. I am reallly sorry to take up your time. Anyways,Thank you for your encouragement and I really happy thae you are supporting me again. Have a nice dayFootwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

About Rules of Verifiability

Hi, I thoroughly checked out rules of Verifiability

(1)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

(2)

• Wikipedia:Offline sources#Challenging offline sources

Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search.

(3)

• Wikipedia:Offline sources

This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged. Providing identifiers such as an ISBN, OCLC number, Open Library number or similar can help others locate physical copies, as cataloguing data can often vary from one library to another.

(4)

• WikiProject Resource Exchange.

Through this board, Anyone can receive my original ROKMC document and ROKMC official answer have Identifier (document registration number)

Identifier (document registration number) can verify that fact - authentic document or counterfeit document.

I can present Identifier (document registration number) to other users.

(5)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Reliable sources must be able to be verified. This does not mean that any particular person at any given moment must be capable of verifying them.

1. Verifiable sources may have time restrictions (only accessible between 10am and 4pm in a particular time zone).
2. Verifiable sources may have location restrictions (only available at one archive, museum, repository, or only available within a certain country or geographical area).
3. Verifiable sources may have cost restrictions (the purchase of a book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or the Interlibrary Loans or Document Delivery costs associated with them, access to a museum costs, costs of entry to paid archival services).
4. Verifiable sources may have technical or personal restrictions (written in languages other than English, on websites that restrict access or require certain software, available on a type of media that requires the reader to have a certain type of technological appliance to access it).'

The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time.

Where a source is difficult to verify, or in a language other than English, many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph and ensuring it can be read by English language readers. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. But if sources of higher quality are difficult to verify, that difficulty alone is not a reason to disregard such sources or replace them with lower-quality ones.

Where a source is difficult to verify, and legal to duplicate or duplicate portions of, produce impressions of, or otherwise make a recording that will allow other editors to verify off the copy, it is a reasonable expectation, but not mandatory, that this be done to assist other Wikipedia editors in verification.

(5) Question

Of course, I requested and My ROKMC official answer is moving into South Korean Government - Open public board in the Question/Petition and Answer Website

But I think that Screenshhot of ROKMC official answer don't have any problems in terms of WP rules of Verifiability.

I don't think that I have the burden of proof to show that screenshot of offcial answer is not a forgery. All scan, photo sources in Wikipedia have a possiblity of forgery. But Why do only I have burden of proof?

I think that wolf has the burden of proof to show that screenshot of official answer is a forgery. Because he suspect my ROKMC official answer.

In conclusion, So far, I didn't violate any WP rules about Primary, secondary and tertiary source, Verifiability and so on.

I didn't know the details about rules and I just intimidated on wolf's knowledge about WP rules.

What do you think of my opinion?

(6) If we go to RSN, we will win.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,

To add "Spartan 3000" on the list, Wolf has the burden to demonstrate verifiability. But Wolf's all 4 secondary sources have flaws, Wolf have to present new reliable source. But I can't find any reliable sources about Spartan 3000.

Honestly, I was very embarrassed in this discussion. Because In the diccsusion of Korean WP, Most important thing is show to official notice, answer and so on. Because, as you said before, an official response to an information request supersedes everything in Korean WP discussion. Screenshot is not matter. If anyone suspicious the forgery, that person have a burden of proof to show a forgery

If this discussion occured in Korean WP, When I presented the screenshot of ROKMC official answer, discussion will be end.

Anyway, From now on, I'll study rules of English WP thoroughly.

Thank you all the time. Footwiks (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no problem, but because what you have done is WP:OR, it needs to be verified by WP:VRT in Korean or English. Once VRT is happy with it, you should be able to use it as a source. How is the Ko-wiki VRT process going? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I consulted with Korean administrator relevant Korean WP commons. I can upload the document. But it needs permission of CC BY or CC BY-SA and it will take time. So I requested at the ROKMC to move my website version answer into South Korean Government - Open public board in the Question/Petition and Answer Website.

I found something important

Wolf said: The article is from 2023, mentions two marines brigades, with almost 8,000 people, called a "Rapid Task Force" (there is no mention of a "Quick Maneuver Force") - Original South Korean source

Now it all makes sense, I found that why wolf don't understand my South Korean sources support my opinion.

I translated the South Korean sources by Google translator.

Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources.

Wolf misunderstood that my source are not about ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force.

So, rather wolf added my sources at his source annex on DRN

As you know, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names.

From 2016 to 2023, All South Korean sources have the term necessarily "해병대 신속기동부대", subsidiarily "Spartan 3000" and "제승부대 (Jesung Unit) as nicknames.

But wolf don't know it.

The most cause of this dispute is translation errors.

Footwiks (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's about translation errors (or journalists' sloppiness).

The way you can demonstrate that the sources are talking about the same unit/formation/tasking, whether or not Google makes translation errors, is to point out that the Korean language symbols are the same. So show, repeatedly, that 해병대 신속기동부대 - if necessary, point out the two parallel lines over an "o" at the front and about "c" and "h" at the end, symbols which have vague similarity in English - that phrase in Korean is used consistently. Even point people to Ko-language web pages and tell them which line it is on.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Another useful thing would be for you to create on the En-wiki a short, solidly referenced article on the 13th Special Forces Brigade (South Korea) / Decapitation Unit (참수부대). Use (South Korea) *after* the name of the unit, not ROK before it (WP:MILUNIT).

Be careful!! English goes: 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th!! NOT REPEAT NOT "13rd." The rules in English are different. That will turn people off while reading your text if you continue to make that error :( Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Spartan 3000 - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Thanks for your advice.

Robert said.

There are at least six ways forward for the editors. First, they can go on their own to the Wikipedia:reliable source noticeboard If so, they should be aware that the volunteers there probably do not want to wade through Source Annexes, or overly lengthy discussions of exchanges on the Internet. Second, one of them can prepare a Request for Comments. We have to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

(1) Preparation

According to your advice, I will create 13th Special Mission Brigade (South Korea)

(2) Strategy. I originally planed to use Strategy-2. But I founded that wolf's 4 western sources have critical flaws. So I'll forcus on using Strategy-1 in RSN.

• Strategy-1

To verify that "Spartan 3000" is not a "Special Force Unit" by using my analysis of 4 Western sources attached by Thewolfchild in RSN.

• Strategy-2

To verify that "Spartan 3000" is a "Quick Maneuver Force" by using my sources in RSN.

This was draft.

(1) Background knowledge

(1-1) Korean "신속기동부대" = "Quick Maneuver Force", Korean "특수부대" = "Special Force", Korean "특수작전" = "Special Operation".

Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources.

For the record, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names.

(1-2) From 2016 to 2023, All South Korean sources including 3 source here, have the term necessarily "해병대 신속기동부대 (ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force)" and subsidiarily "스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)", "제승부대 (Jeseung Unit)", as nicknames

When you check out the prose from South Koreans source, Please find the Korean term "신속기동부대", "스파르탄 3000", "제승부대"

(1-3) Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force and Special Force is a unit of different concept in the military, likewise, 신속기동부대 and 특수부대 is a unit of different concept in South Korean military.

Of course some Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are Special Forces, But definitely all Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are not Special Forces. This is why Wikipedia have independent 2 articles - Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force and Special Force.)

(2) Sources

These South Korean sources consistently saying "Spartan 3000" is a just Quick Maneuver Force , not Special Force Unit. So These sources support to remove "Spartan 3000 " on the list of military special forces units.

(2-1) Yonhap News article (2016-03-20) from Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스)

Translation of gist.

South Korean Ministry of National Defense announced that ROKMC had a formation of the "Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대)", as regiment-level and subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, the unit, dubbed "Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 3000) in March"

So far, “It took 24 hours for battalion-level units and 48 hours for regiment-level units to start operations across the Korean Peninsula, but the newly formed Quick Maneuver Force can operate within 24 hours even though it is at the regiment-level,

(2-1) SBS News article (2017-11-03) from Seoul Broadcasting System

Translation of gist

Lee Chan-hyuk (musician) attached to "Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대)", nickname "Jeseung Unit (제승부대)" - subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division which is organized in March 2016. Lee Chan-hyuk will serve as a normal infantryman in the Quick Maneuver Force.

(2-3) Official Answer (Issued 7 June 2023) from Republic of Korea Marine Corps

(If you think that this ROKMC official answer have a possibility of forgery, Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, You can receive original document.)

Translation of full text

• ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - "Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 3000)" which announced by the the press in 2016.
  

Currently, official name is "ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE (대한민국 해병대 신속기동부대)"

• The name - "Jeseung Unit (제승부대)" had been in use in ROKMC.
  

But, currently the name - "ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE (대한민국 해병대 신속기동부대)" is in use consistently.

"ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE (대한민국 해병대 신속기동부대)" is not newly formed Special Force Unit.

Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.

• Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - "Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 3000)".
  

(3) Conclusion

(3-1) All South Korean sources including 3 source here, don' have any sentences or terms: "Spartan 3000" is a Special Force Unit (특수부대) or Main task of "Spartan 3000"' is a Special Operation (특수작전).

(3-2) All South Korean sources consistently saying: "Spartan 3000" is a just Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대).

(3-4) "There are not any reliable sources to support retaining of "Spartan 3000" on the list of military special forces units..

(3-5) If we regard that "Spartan 3000" is a Special Force Unit. This is the Original Research.

(3-6) Therefore, We have to remove "Spartan 3000" on the list of military special forces units.

Thanks, Have a nice weekend. Footwiks (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks, Robert said he was getting tired of your your VERY VERY VERY LONG LONG posts. I am tired of them as well, honestly; but I am more interested.

I would not recommend the reliable sources noticeboard, because you will be tempted to write these long walls of text in uncertain English which turn everybody off.

We have reached a pause.

I would suggest you take at least three days break from WP, do something else, and while you do that I will also consider possible ways forward. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. I understand what you mean. Honestly, I'm also tired, I need a time to break and prepare. I am planning to open a case at the end of June.

But I have something to tell you about WP

I know my long posts and I understand trend of TL;DR in WP

But I was disappointed the dispute resolution procedure in WP.

In the DRN, Wolf presented the just 4 western sources. I evaluate them.

For example,

(1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016)

(2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017)."

If NY Times article is really about ROK Marine Corps "Spartan 3000" unit, How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (based on Telegraph). and actually South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017

In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts.

Do you think that they really can't find this flaws? Robert and Wolf are English native speakers and smart experienced users.

I think that they didn't read sources and my evaluation thoroughly.

But you read the sources and evaluation relevant discussion thoroughly.

So You can understand this issue and truth.

I read the below sentence

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws#sources

Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative.

But editors and administrators don't read basic sources relevant dissussion thoroughly, Even if we are discussing about reliability of sources.

This is why I was tempted to write long walls of text.

If there are many discussion participants and they read the sources thoroughly like you, Probably this dissucssion will be closed very easily.

I finished the creation of 13th Special Mission Brigade (South Korea).

Anyways, Thanks for your advice. Have a nice weekend and take a good rest.

Footwiks (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Structure of the Republic of Korea Army

I created Structure of the Republic of Korea Army.

The hierarchy consists of "직할부대" and "예하부대" But I don't know the exact English term about "직할부대" and "예하부대"

Meaning is as belows.

"직할부대" - Units Under Direct Control from higher command or unit / "예하부대" - Attached units, Subordinate units

Please review and polish article. I’d appreciate some feedback on the article.

Best Regards, Footwiks (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at this. I think we need a translation of ko:한-UAE_군사협력협정.

First, you need to link or show a source where I can see this list from a WP:RELIABLE source.

Your question doesn't have a simple answer. Do the 예하부대 units have any intermediate commander between them and the formation commander?

Example to understand the issue: Army Special Warfare Command:

Who does the commander of the 7th SF Brigade receive his orders from (예하부대)?

Who does the commander of the International Peace Supporting Standby Force, an under-direct-control-type-formation (직할부대), receive his orders from? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(1) I'll look into ko:한-UAE_군사협력협정 and ko:아크부대.

(2) old page from official ROK Army webstie. Maybe, this is the closest source.

As you know, there is a a military secret issue in the military, Most government don't officially provide detailed information about Structure.

But In South Korea, all men over the age of 20 have to serve in the military for at least 18 months. I also served in the military.

As a rule of thumb, current structure near the mark.

If some other user point out about reliable sources, I don't know, Honestly, I don't want to create articles about South Korean military. There are not sufficient reliable sources about South Korean military and as you know, many Western reliable sources have wrong information about South Korean military.

(3)

Of course, Commander (3 stars gerneral ) of Army Special Warfare Command can order both 직할부대 - 707 SM Group and 예하부대 - 1st SF Brigade, 7th SF Brigade and so on to go into action.

Not only defending on chain of command,

Defends on location of unit, flexibility of attachment, budget structure and so on. It's complicated and difficult to explain.

Most "직할부대"(direct) are stationed in the garrison of Command.

For example, Army Capital Defense Command

Below units are stationed in the garrison of Army Capital Defense Command or stationed near garrison of Army Capital Defense Command.

• Headquarters Unit
• 35th Special Mission Battalion
• 1st Air Defense Brigade
• 1st Security Group
• 122nd Signal Group
• 1113th Engineer Corps
• Capital Defense Command Military Police Group
• Shield Education Corps.

"예하부대"(attached) have a flexibility of attachment.

For example, VII Maneuver Corps

below 예하부대"(attached) can assigned to other Corps, as the case may be

• Capital Mechanized Infantry Division
• 2nd Quick Response Division
• 8th Maneuver Division
• 11th Maneuver Division

I also think that Army Special Warfare Command have ambiguity to distinguish

So I'll amend it.

Thanks for your feedback.

Footwiks (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Understand re REFERENCES

(3) So the "직할부대"(direct), the command troops, are more likely to stay with that particular command even in Transition to war?, while the "예하부대", at least re divisions, may be reassigned more easily? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's right.

직할부대 (command troops), are more likely to stay with that particular command while the "예하부대" (attached units) may be reassigned as the case may be.

직할부대" - Units under direct control from higher command, headquarters or unit

I think that it is difficult to understand for English native speaker.

Word -“command troops” or "headquarters troops" is closest term in meaning to "직할부대",

It seems to be a good choice of wording.

Thanks, Have a nice day.

Footwiks (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No, once you use "XXX Troops," it's a very widely understood concept. More often corps troops or divisional troops (recce, anti-tank, signals, AA battalions) but the concept still carries over. Search for "division troops" or "divisional troops" in the English internet, you'll see it's very widespread. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, about English term 직할부대 and 예하부대, Let's think about it over time. Footwiks (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is clear. I will make the changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I still have the QMF issue in my thoughts - I will restart some kind of move - do not think you're forgotten. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I never forget. I'll definitely remove Spartan 3000 on the list someday.

I confirmed that ROKMC will transfer official answer to Open Public Board soon.

In my opinion, on this issue,

key factor is not the reliable sources and logical explanation.

key factor is the number of participants.

After Wikipedia:Requests for comment process carry out, many participants will comment

• Delete Spartan 3000
• Delete Spartan 3000
• Delete Spartan 3000

Discussion will be closed easily and promptly.

But If participants are only you and me, wolf again, We will have an impasse again.

So I'm searching for users with expertise of military who can participate in discussion.

Footwiks (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

1st Special Forces Brigade (South Korea)

Hi,

I created 1st Special Forces Brigade (South Korea), but some user proposed deletion due to notability

If you have spare time, Can you participate in discussion

Thanks Footwiks (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have done so. In regard to Spartan 3000, I am busy IRL, but will take further action - and will tell you when I do. Now, Onel5659 is rigorous on draft-ifying articles, so for any articles in future, find the news media sources and add them as you create the article. If there are no media or non-official sources, WP:GNG - read it, definitely - may not be met, so maybe only add the data to the page of the higher command. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot "search" for users to participate in the discussion - WP:CANVASS. Notices will go at WP:Korea; WP:Milhist, and any other forums you want - do tell me which ones, but *you* will find yourself failing again if you breech WP:CANVASS. Again, read that one too. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I understand WP:CANVASS, I'll will not breach WP:CANVASS.

In regard to Spartan 3000, I am also busy IRL. I have to prepare summer vacation.

As you said, we're not working to any deadline.

When we are not busy IRL, Let's take further action.

Best regards

Footwiks (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

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 alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Templates for mechanized brigades of Ukraine

A tag has been placed on Category:Templates for mechanized brigades of Ukraine 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

EPIGN

Hello Buckshot06. I have a remark regarding the change in category you just made for the article. Since EPIGN was disestablished in 2007, "Defunct airborne units and formations of France" is the right category for the article (the French gendarmerie, just like many other armed forces does not "rename" units. It disestablishes them and creates new ones). So, unless you plan to consolidate current and former units in a single "Airborne units and formations of France" category the change you made doesn't make sense to me. Do you agree ? Rgds, Domenjod (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was planning to do. You're ahead of me!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles about Korean War

Hi, Buckshot06~ Haw are you doing? recently, I created articles about Korean War

But some user want to delete these articles. If you have the spare time, please participate in the discussion.

• United Nations Forces in the Korean War
• Medical support in the Korean War
• United Kingdom in the Korean War

Take care! Footwiks (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 1060th Centre for Material-Technical Support

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1060th Centre for Material-Technical Support, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrator Notice Board

Some user reported me to Administrator Notice Board and pointed out my actions in the discussion of Spartan 3000. Administrator Notice Board

If you have a spare time, Please participate in the ANB.

Thanks

Regards, Footwiks (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

• Suggestion improvements
• Favorite collections tips
• Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So long

Thanks for your advice on my talk page. I think that you need not to participate in discussions involved me.

If I blocked, Let's meet up someday in Wikipedia.

You are the best user with smart talent and good personality when I met in the Wikipedia. It was a pleasure working with you.

Thank you for everything you have done for me agian.

Best regards, Take care! Footwiks (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Footwiks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Brigades of the Bulgarian Land Forces

A tag has been placed on Category:Brigades of the Bulgarian Land Forces 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soviet Forces in Mongolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enkhbayar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian Navy

Please improve changes for the manual of style in the Russian Navy article, by arrange in order of article elements, and removing flags from infoboxes (except colors).

The proper way to use {{lang-ru}} template, prevent overlinking to Russian language, and romanization of Russian, which renders:

Russian: Военно-морской флот (ВМФ), romanized: Voyenno-morskoy flot (VMF), lit. 'Military Maritime Fleet'

Also, that would affect Russian Ground Forces for an improvement to MOS. 2001:4451:824F:B700:D5D3:2171:B3EF:E335 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: you forgot to remove flags in the "Commanders" infobox section. 2001:4451:824F:B700:D5D3:2171:B3EF:E335 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell you what: WP:SOFIXIT; Talk:Russian Navy, and User talk:TylerBurden might be three things to consider. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

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: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

55th Naval Infantry Division

Hi!

I’m sure that, as a pretty experienced editor, you can figure out why your most recent edit to 55th Naval Infantry Division was a POV violation so wanton as to be almost vandalistic, apart from being in the wrong article (although they should probably be merged like we often do with divisions that were reduced to brigades).

Please don’t do it again in article namespace. If you feel the understandable urge to tell it like you see (or view) it, you can always “experiment” in your sandbox.

Keep calm and keep editing, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I deserve the censure. I have thanked you for your reverting edit. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries 😉

But while we're on the topic, how would you feel about a merge into 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade? Many ex-Soviet units get handled that way as it's easier to consolidate, especially if the original incarnation wasn't particularly notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that Kges1901 be invited to comment. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

From the sources I've found there's enough information to keep standalone articles on both units. Kges1901 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for Barnstar

I appreciate very much your Barnstar for my Armed Forces of Italian Empire in "Africa Orientale italiana". 48ol (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Terminology

Dear Wreck Smurfy (talk · contribs) I believe in view of events since February 23, 2022, that we should discontinue all use of the term "Great Patriotic War" with immediate effect. I have started changing that term to Second World War. This is by agreement with Kges1901 (talk · contribs). What are your thoughts on the matter? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already stopped using it. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mechanized infantry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marder.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 291st Infantry Regiment (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Active Component.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Merger of 41st Bombardment Squadron and 41st (Expeditionary) Air Refueling Squadron

Consolidated in 1985 and active for another 8 years. Description of the service of the 41st Bomb Sq in the reserve is totally wrong (as I ranted about on its talk page). I can't find that the squadron has ever been activated as an expeditionary unit, so I think going with the current name is appropriate. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead with merge at 41 ARS, cannot see any problem. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

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: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

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) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

198th Rifle Division

Hey, Buckshot06. Could you please do the honors of adding a link to this division's article in the template Divisions of the Soviet Union 1945–1957? I'm unable to figure out how to edit this template. Thanks. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, happy to. I am sure you do not need instructions about how to access the template editing box, but do tell me if you actually would like some pointers to be able to do this yourself in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really necessary, for the few more times it will come up. Also, I'm about to start work on the 197th RD, one of the three-times-formed RDs you requested several years ago. You see, I haven't forgotten. ;-) Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

<edit conflict> OK Wreck Smurfy I removed [[198th Rifle Division (Soviet Union]]. The article was at 198th Rifle Division, without a suffix. So I just made sure the link in the template was to purely [[198th Rifle Division]].

Thank you for all the amazing hard work you do!! I can see you do not make a habit of forgetting!! Slava Ukrainii!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I see it there now. Much obliged. This is not hard work; it's what I look forward to after work. Slava Ukrainii! back atcha. I do have to say that the article on the 59th Guards RD was created in 2007, and yet no article on the 2nd formation of the 197th has yet been done.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether you say it's hard work or not, you bought all the books, sifted all the information, mastered the day-by-day course of the fighting on the Eastern Front after Barbarossa (*not* something I've done), decided on what to write when the sources don't match, and are working through 2,000 ish divisions!! My hat is still off to you!! I'm happy to help now and then!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"Chief of Armed Forces" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chief of Armed Forces has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 12 § Chief of Armed Forces until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

• New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
• Tech tip: Filters
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

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 1 review between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

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 an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

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) 19:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06. Thank you for your work on 1060th Centre for Material-Technical Support. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North Caucasus Military District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordzhonikidze.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Migalovo (air base), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IL-28.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

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 English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Chkalovsky Air Base

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chkalovsky Air Base, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balashov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

• Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
• Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Border Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Border Troops.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Border District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soviet Republic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

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 Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

US DoD code names

Did you mean to add this to the article instead of the talk page? - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No. While the deletion debate is on, the material should not be added to article pages. See the deletion debate discussions for the Uzbek Air Force commander. Apparently violates WP:PATT. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the addition of Exercise Purple Storm to the talk page has to do with a deletion discussion about an Uzbek Air Force commander, but talk pages are for discussing articles, not for hosting content that "should not be added to article pages". I suggest hosting such content in your sandbox until the time is right to add it to the article. Also, could you point me to the deletion discussion you mentioned? I was unable to find it and I'm interested in learning more about this situation. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Look at the Delsort/Mil, and then look at the archived discussions through the link at the top of the page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulla Xolmuhamedov, though I still don't see what this has to do with Exercise Purple Storm. If you can't add the information to List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names, you should revert your changes to the talk page and keep the content in your sandbox until the time is right. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lists of military installations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airborne Warning and Control System.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

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 three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Strategic Air Command command and control systems

A tag has been placed on Category:Strategic Air Command command and control systems 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

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) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military installations established in 1968

A tag has been placed on Category:Military installations established in 1968 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 142nd Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Seaboard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Buckshot06!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:NATO Command Structure as at 3 June 2021.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:NATO Command Structure as at 3 June 2021.pdf. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not undoing

You're not going to keep undoing my edits and get away with it, I will revert your edits, sign up and contact a higher mod, at the very least. I have responded in the article you reverted, your revert was a waste of everyone's time. Things have changed so get with the times and live in the real world. 148.252.146.215 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message 148.252.146.215. The point of my reverts was to encourage you to add text that made some WP:REFERENCED sense, that supported the WP:FIVEPILLARS aim of building the encyclopedia. Contacting a higher mod - well we call them WP:ADMINISTRATORs here - is a great idea. I used to be one, though I am trying to waste less time here and have more time in the real world. Nick-D my Australian friend *is* an administrator, but you are welcome to raise your concerns with my conduct with another person from the main administrator list, or make a post at WT:MILHIST. Often little edited articles' talk pages don't get much attention, so WT:MILHIST might be another idea. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Proper flag used by the AFL

The Armed Forces of Liberia uses the flag that I added to the page. This can be seen in multiple sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU30jUhNfzo

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7056635/color-guard-liberian-armed-forces-day

https://twitter.com/embassygermany/status/1359824673266167811

Please do not modify or remove information if you're unsure of it's accuracy. Thank you.

Goldenraystudios (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt of the accuracy of the crest. The crest is shown on the Armed Forces of Liberia website itself. I would invite you to recheck the edit history of the article and see who made most of the expansions since 2008, totaling tens of thousands of bytes, and added the source references.

The question is about how many copies of the central symbol this website - and that page - needs. My edit summary said "One or other, not both." I do not believe we need the flag as well as the crest.

I would (also) be quite entitled to remove both files at this time because neither appears to comply with our copyright procedures. Your flag file you added is marked "own work" with no source attribution. I would kindly advise you to add some origin-of-symbol marking without delay. Meanwhile the seal is a copyright infringement, with the @ symbol clearly visible at the bottom of the linked page. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have made previous edits, which are appreciated, however it does not mean you are correct now. Other articles such as the Armed Forces of Nigeria, the United States, South Africa, etc. all have both the flag of the Armed Forces and the seal. As previously mentioned, neither violate the copyright of Liberia. Goldenraystudios (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am correct that you are infringing copyright with the current files you have uploaded, and unless you delete them yourself, both the flag file you have uploaded, and the seal symbol file (not your responsibility) will be deleted. Neither meet WP's copyright rules as they are now.

I would kindly suggest that should you wish to retain one or both of the flag or seal symbols you (1) check the @ symbols at the official webpages you have repeatedly copied into the edit summaries; you (2) stop making yourself look foolish by copying in Youtube, which is *not* a WP:Reliable Source; you (3) review the GFDL upload rules at Commons which you appear to have overlooked or ignored when you made the first flag file upload - your word alone on a webpage does not constitute Liberian Government copyright waiver; and make further changes in response to the GFDL upload rules at Commons.

Once you have done all that, then, you might be able to retain either the flag or the crest files and then you can make arguments about article layout. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I find it very funny how you claim to be an expert, however you fail to distinguish between a copyright symbol and an @ symbol. Neither violate the Wikipedia copyright policy nor Liberian copyright law, and it's very interesting watching a non-Liberian try to correct someone connected to the Liberian government. Youtube was linked to show the flag in use by the Armed Forces and official sources were used. Shame that you cannot distinguish. Goldenraystudios (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bombing squadrons of the United States Navy

A tag has been placed on Category:Bombing squadrons of the United States Navy 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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

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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 82nd (West Africa) Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Army.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Units and formations of the United States Marine Corps in World War II

A tag has been placed on Category:Units and formations of the United States Marine Corps in World War II 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kenya Army Infantry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Province.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC

The article No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of references provided to prove notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for view on moving No. 668 - No. 673 Squadron RAF to AAC equivalent

Hello,

I wish to move No's 668 - 673 RAF squadron's to the Army Air Corps equivalent and i wanted your opinion on the move before i did anything. The RAF squadrons were active near the end of the Second World War within India, never went operational and only existed for about 2 years. Whereas the AAC equivalents have been active for some years such as No. 672 Squadron AAC which was active for 19 years between 2 different phases.

Also, what's your opinion of moving the above 675, 677, 678 squadrons and merging them all into 6 Regiment Army Air Corps?

Gavbadger (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Merging the double articles for 668 - 673 etc has been on my list for a long time. Do it, please, retaining all references. Upmerging 675, 677 and 678 Squadrons is probably a good idea too. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for view on moving No. 652-666 Squadron RAF to AAC equivalent

Hi,

What's your view on moving No. 652-666 Squadron's RAF to AAC equivalent such as 652, 654, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 664 and 666. The current RAF articles are ex AOP squadrons and under 10k size. Most already have a equivalent AAC article. I'll leave 663 alone as it's Polish and 665 as it's Canadian. 651, 653, 655, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672 & 673 have already been done.

I wanted your opinion before proposing at WP:Military History talkpage.

Gavbadger (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If I was interested enough and had the time, I would have merged them already. Don't think you need to propose it, in accordance with WP:BOLD, I would just do it. If you want to be extra careful you could look at the edit histories of a couple of them and check with any more frequent editors, though. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)