User talk:FarSouthNavy/Archive 4

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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 reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia

Thanks,

No one experienced an OBE in a research area, this Parnia has said. Keith is a nice guy but his statement about target identification failing is due only to the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.63.6 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, see discussion here. Though there is at least one source -an abstract- that actually supports your position, it fails WP:SOURCE. Regards--Darius (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Adda

Hi. I saw that you recently moved page Adda (river) to Adda River over a redirect, giving the reason "Unneeded disambiguation". Just a minor note about that. Adda is a disambiguation page and thus disambiguation of the river is needed. It was parenthetically disambiguated Adda (river), which I believe may sometimes be the preferred form in Europe, and maybe other places too. Then sometimes putting the river first is preferred, e.g., River Adda (Wales). You converted that to Adda River which is naturally disambiguated. That form is generally preferred in the United States. How a title is disambiguated is generally reflected in the lead sentence:

• The Adda is a river in North Italy -or-
• The Adda River is in North Italy

Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That move was reverted. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) #Disambiguation:

• Rivers, lakes and mountains often include the word River, Lake or Mount in the name; national conventions and idiom should be followed in this matter. For example, rivers in the UK and Ireland follow the pattern River Thames, while those in the United States follow Mississippi River. For many countries the additional word is used when needed for disambiguation purposes, but is otherwise omitted: compare Jade (river) or Achelous River (which require disambiguation) with Rhine (which does not). See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming.

Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Hello! Could you express your opinion about the organization of the Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which provoked a little controversy these days (particularly in relation to the positioning of the "Russian military intervention")? If you wish to express an opinion, there is a discussion in the Talk Page of this template. Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

General Roca and the Conquest of the Desert

You certainly know your Argentine history. I wonder if you can read this Wikipedia page in English please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert

Someone has stamped it as "Genocide of Indigenous peoples". I think this is a very impartial observation considering the head of the Indian warriors was taken alive and bestowed the rank of an Argentine Army Colonel. Also the Indian warriors were supplied with rifles and horses, meaning they weren't entirely poorly armed. Roca also freed thousands of women and their very young daughters that had been forced into sexual slavery, something that is ignored by those that maintain that it was a genocide when it was not.--Waterloosunset2004 (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue has sparked a huge controversy between orthodox and revisionists here in Argentine since many decades ago. Both sides seem to forget that one of the few common goals of the warring parties in the Argentine civil wars since 1820 (to say the least) was to expand the country's southern frontier towards the Andes to the west and up to the Strait of Magellan to the south, no matter how many Mapuche, Ranquel or Tehuelche people would be killed in the process. Hypocrisy and croc tears were only a retroactive twenty-century view. "Genocide" was obviously a term coined by revisionists, but unheard of until the 1980s. IMHO, they tried to drawn a parallel between what they call the "Roca's massacre" and the 1970s dirty war, which supposed the physical annihilation of the enemy. The aim of the 1879 campaign, however, was to conquest the land, not to exterminate its inhabitants. I think a mention of a number of revisionist opinions on the subject is enough. I am also for moving the two last paragraphs of the lede to a section apart, leaving only a few words explaining the two positions.

The case against ethnic cleansing is harder to defend. After being military defeated, the indigenous peoples of the Pampas and the Patagonia were forcibly moved from their ancestral domains, deprived of their nomadic way of life and press into serfdom in the new landowners' ranchs. Europeans colonies were established in the former aboriginal realm, while the native culture was despised and largely forgotten by the later generations. "Ethnic cleansing" is one of the items under the scope of the template "Genocide of Indigenous peoples", thus from my own point of view its inclusion in the article is entirely justified.

It's true that a number of "Indian" chiefs (I remember right now Catriel and Namuncurá) were given military ranks inside the Argentine Army, but these people had always considered themselves indios argentinos (Argentine Indians), loyals to the Argentine government (in contrast with those who lived or were born in Chile and stole cattle in the Pampas). This kind of interaction was not unusual; a couple of decades earlier a unitarian army's officer, Manuel Baigorria, ended up as a Ranquel chieftain at the time of Rosas. In the case of chieftain Pincén, at the time of his capture in 1878 he still preserved a flag of the Argentine Confederation, a gift from Rosas in recognition for his assistance during a previous campaign (1833-34).--Darius 02:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Name changes of various articles

This point is also being discussed at Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919#Requested move 23 October 2014.

• The change of names of these articles make no English sense. It is correct English that a 'proper name' is capitalized and a 'proper name' is the name of a particular person, place of event. These articles are about, and thus the names must so reflect, that these are names of a particular events. These name changes need to be reverted. Thank you. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• The same problem exists with your change to Illinois Coal wars that also needs to be reverted. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"War", "incident", "riot", "massacre", et alia are not proper names, as far as I know. The bulk of the articles in WP follows this pattern.--Darius (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Where are you obtaining these wrong ideas in the Manual of Style? And you should not be making any more such changes until this is resolved by consensus. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since when in the English language are these changes correct. A 'proper name' is the name of a particular person. place. or event. For proper names, correct English language capitalization is that each word in the proper name is capitalized except for little connection words like 'the', 'in', 'a' and so on. I am still waiting for the justification for these changes from the Manual of Style so that I can check it out. In the meantime, all these name changes are wrong and should not continue. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Darius, your edit summary on the moves of Springfield Race Riot of 1908, Cicero Race Riot of 1951, and Charleston Riot was "Rm capital per MoS." Thank you for the edit summaries. Can you please be more specific about what subsection within WP:MOS justifies these moves? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hugh. Well, I concede that the right edit summary should have been "Rm capital per naming conventions", not MoS.

WP:NCCAPS is pretty clear about capitalization of titles: "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." At the end of the page, there is a section showing examples of correct capitalization. I think all the articles I renamed recently are what the guideline describes as "Multiword articles", this is, a title which combines proper names (like the places where the riots occurred) and common names ("race riot", "riot", "war", "massacre").--Darius (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. That helps me understand. Certainly the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis multiword title example seems very close to the titles currently at issue. However, the lead paragraph of WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) includes the exception "unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized" which I read to exhort us to consult reliable sources as to whether the subject of the article is a thing with a proper name, like World War I. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's OK for me, we should search what reliable sources say about these issues. IMHO, however, besides literature works, book titles and movies, there is little chance for an event to be an exception to multiword phrases. The example you provide is a good one, but it applies only to subjects widely known and coined by scholars (we can add "Spanish Civil War", "Wall Street Crash of 1929" or "Cold War"). Less well-known but equally important topics like the Waco siege or the 1969 Northern Ireland riots follow the multiword rule. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree you were somewhat shall we say fastidious in keeping a tidy talk page in the middle of an ongoing discussion of article-space with fellow editors. Why did you not respond on the article talk page? Hugh (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We accommodated you by coming to your talk page to discuss multiple article-space edits of yours with you after you chose not to respond on article talk. This is your talk page but please defer editing this discussion until we achieve some resolution. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem.--Darius (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Specific examples to read. The Lager Beer Riot, Springfield Race Riot of 1908, Chicago Race Riot of 1919 Lombard Street Riot, Hough Riots, Glenville Shootout, and Gwangju Uprising are capitalized in the references provided in their articles. Philadelphia Election Riot is capitalized in the references provided in the article, where is it actually named the 'Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742'. Aldermen's Wars, Know-Nothing Riot of 1856, New York City Police Riot, May Day Riots of 1919 and Glenville Shootout have no online references to check, but it is clear that these articles are about a particular event and not events in general and so are a proper names and all words must be capitalized. It is also clear from the content of Know-Nothing Riot that particular riots are being discussed, not riots in general; with Ruby Murders, a particular set of murders is being discussed not all murders that have occurred in the town of Ruby. The same is true of the dozens of other articles about a particular thing, which being a proper name requires capitalization and not the lower casing you have been performing since you started on this tack in August 2014. Request you revert all such work of yours and leave proper names alone. Hmains (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"It is also clear from the content of Know-Nothing Riot that particular riots are being discussed, not riots in general". Good point, but instead of breaking WP:NCCAPS by capitalizing common nouns, it would be more wise to have the year of the event attached to the title.

"X is capitalized in the references provided in the article". No matter how many sources capitalize common names, Wikipedia has specific naming conventions (read citation above), and the only phrases that can be treated as proper names are books' titles, artistic works and movies. The only exceptions could be notable historic events widely known by their capitalized form ("French Revolution", "Paris Commune", as Hugh mentioned "World War I" or "Sicilian Vespers"), not minor, local incidents.--Darius (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"No matter how many sources capitalize common names, Wikipedia has specific naming conventions..." All the specific naming conventions in WP:NCCAPS occur after noting the exception of proper names. The exception is mention in the lede sentence of WP:NCCAPS and clarified in the second sentence. If a thing has a name we are supposed to use that name for the title of its article. Hugh (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We should request then the opinion of an administratror or something like that in order to establish if local issues such as race riots are or not an exception to the rule.--Darius (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"local issue" May I ask, what is your basis for bringing this local dimension into our discussion? I find no reference to this local criteria in WP:NCCAPS. All of the recent moves at issue here are specific events at specific places and times. Are you positing a category of "local" events which cannot have proper names? To me the issue of local is more related to whether a topic is notable. Are you arguing that the topics of the articles you renamed are not notable because they are local? Hugh (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Iam not arguing nor asserting anything, I simply said that we should request a third-part opinion about what is the rule and what the exception.--Darius (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"widely known" Preponderance of reliable sources is exactly what widely known means on Wikipedia. Hugh (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What made an issue widely known to the point of becoming a proper name is not mere reliable sources, but the scholars' opinion, who focus particularly on major historic events, not minor ones.--Darius (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"...with Ruby Murders, a particular set of murders is being discussed not all murders that have occurred in the town of Ruby..." Thank you for the reply. This post helped me understand. I think we should be careful not to run afoul of WP:NOR by naming things that do not have names, but if a thing has a name we should use that name as the title of its article. Hugh (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Lager Beer Riot, Springfield Race Riot of 1908, Chicago Race Riot of 1919 Lombard Street Riot, Hough Riots, Glenville Shootout, and Gwangju Uprising are capitalized in the references provided in their articles. Philadelphia Election Riot is capitalized in the reference..." Hmains, thank you for your time on this issue and for your research and post. Darius, you posted "we should search what reliable sources say about these issues." A fellow editor has taken the time to investigate RS and share the findings. We should respect that. My understanding is this is determinative. Can you please respond to Hmains' review of RS? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We should rely on the good faith of Hmains, as himself acknowledged in his original post. This fails WP:V. Furthermore, although the titles of the cited references are capitalized (see the articles you mentioned above), remember that book's titles in English are always treated as proper nouns, here in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I insist, Iam for a request for comment.--Darius (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I find a mix of upper case and lower case in the online references in Chicago race riot of 1919. Significantly, Encyclopedia Britanica refers to the "Chicago Race Riot." The criteria for a proper noun in WP:NCCAPS is very strong: "...a proper noun that would always occur capitalized..." (emphasis added). Hugh (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Again I am disappointed to see continued deletes of comments from your talk page in the course of dialog with fellow editors, deletes falling disproportionately on one side of this disagreement. Hugh (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There is a current request for comment here. If the conclusions are that all those titles are proper nouns, feel free to revert my changes, I will not oppose that, but I think that this discussion on my talk page is finished. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• This uncertainty is likely when a name sometimes treated as a proper-name is also a descriptor, e.g. the Chicago Race Riot of 1919 alias Chicago race riot of 1919 was a race riot in 1919 in Chicago. Plus "importance capitalization". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Race riot of 1919‎

Please join our discussion at Talk:Chicago Race riot of 1919‎. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

MAS vs MS

Hello. Thanks for correcting my mistake, I had indeed confused the MAS and the MS. That episode was already cited in the proper article. --Italianhistorian88 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi man, you're welcomed. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rivers renamed

Hi, I see you're renaming river articles again. I think we've had that discussion before, see for instance User talk:DagosNavy/Archive 3#Rivers in Slovakia and WP:NCRIVER. Also for rivers in Spain, "River" is not part of the commonly used name, so let's move these articles back to the "River"-less names. Markussep ^Talk 14:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Markussep, yes, there was a previous discussion, but no consensus was reached as far as I know. However, after reading again WP:NCRIVER, I concur that these articles should be move back to their original form. I've already reverted my edit renaming the page on Manadero. Thank you for assuming good faith, not like another user who accused me of "disruptive editing". Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive response. Best regards. Markussep ^Talk 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, mate.--Darius (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization

DN, the case fixes that you started have provoked a bit of a shitform that I inherited. I've pinging everyone involved, as agreed at withdrawn proposal Talk:Watts Riots#Requested moves, but I think you got omitted from that list. So here's what's up.

• Related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name"

open move discussions:

• Talk:Pullman Strike#Requested move 20 December 2014
• Talk:Houston Riot (1917)#Requested move 14 December 2014
• Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre#Requested move

moved to lower case:

• Talk:Carnation Massacre#Requested move 13 December 2014
• Talk:Chicago race riot of 1919#Requested move 2
• Talk:Potato riots#Requested moves

not moved to upper case:

• Talk:Rock Springs massacre#Requested moves

In case you care. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, sorry for starting all this mess, but WP:NCCAPS is crystal clear regarding capitalization. The only exceptions to the rule -besides book or movie titles- are some common nouns listed by MOS:CAPS, such as MOS:COMPASS, MOS:INSTITUTIONS and MOS:MILTERMS, among a few others. IMHO there is nothing to discuss here, although some users have overreacted to this issue. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. When I started working case fixes in the area of labor strikes, riots, massacres, etc., I didn't realize that DagosNavy had already done some of the same ones, and had been reverted by a guy claiming to be sent by God, which stirred up a mess, attracted a couple of nuts and couple of anti-WP:MOS types, so it's being discussed. So far, all that have closed have held up the usual consensus that we follow MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, but as you can see, even though there is "nothing to discuss here", they keep at it. As part of withdrawing a big RM, I had agree to ping everyone involved, but DagosNavy's involvement was far enough back that I think I left him off the ping list. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

DN, while I agree with your move here, it's likely to be reverted, as two of us already tried that recently. I didn't quite understand your edit summary: Rm capital from common name per User talk:Hmains. The first part makes sense, but I don't see anything supporting this on User talk:Hmains. Did I miss something? If you want to make progress, it would be better to participate in the discussions and requested moves about caps and WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Some of the ones linked above are still open. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, first of all, the summary was an automated predictive option I clicked by mistake, it came from an early summary when I reverted one of many Hmains changes that challenged WP:NCCAPS. There is a thread on his talkpage, namely "Perry Race Riot", where you and another user expressed your disagreement with him about what is a proper name and what not.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that 1) the term massacre is a common name and 2) that the sources you provided at Talk:Lawrence massacre are enough to keep the article's title in lower case. So I performed the change per WP:BOLD. Regards.--Darius (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ApacheDown2003.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ApacheDown2003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi, Just wanted to say: let us keep going! —Pietadè (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pietade, thanks for your support!. Bussiness as usual on this weekend, though a Saturday evening with my children and an (expensive) night out has distracted me from editing just a couple of hours. Cheers!.--Darius (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi DagosNavy, added on today's page (etwiki DonB) a link to the article: On Ukraine battlefield, one act of mercy becomes an Internet meme. The act of mercy took place on 22 Jan., during tank battle. Perhaps it could illustrate the battle, 'cause, if you deem it appropriate to add this, where it (link) suits. As for me, added this in et article under today's date.
BBC has published a pretty nice "thing" on LGM today too (How Russia outfoxes its enemies). Some day nothing, some day plenty of "no-nothing"... —Pietadè (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pietade, thanks for your suggestion. Besides the poignant overtone in Chaban's story, I concur with you, the article has the potential to illustrate some aspects of the Donbass war, such as the presence of Russian military personnel in the militias' ranks or the fact that real tank battles are raging on between the Ukrainian and the rebel armies. I will add a brief line to the timeline today.

Interesting BBC article about the Russian "maskirovka". I think they're masters of deception at different scales, from the tactical level to the propaganda battlefield. What most impressed me during this war was their ability to cover-up their decisive intervention to avoid the collapse of the rebel republics during the summer. While the whole world was expecting a full-scale Russian invasion by April-May 2014...the actual invasion by stealth became almost unnoticed in late August -with the rebel forces under pressure on all fronts- when unmarked Russian forces crossed the border at Novoazovsk and Amvrosiivka, closing the trap on Ukrainian troops in Ilovaisk and saving the separatists from disaster.--Darius (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

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 reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your username

Can you tell me about your user name, please? BMK (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it was explained a long time ago. Please try here. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, DagosNavy,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hola

Was looking through my mail archive and found a copy of that map you were looking for me to create for the article on the South Georgia operation. I'd forgotten to be honest but its now well under way. Can I get some help with the translation?

VUELOS DE HELICOPTEROS 1. Primer vuelo. 2. Aterrizaje y escape primer vuelo. 3. Segundo vuelo. 4. Segunda vuelo recibe fuego. 5. Evasión y aterrizaje forzoso. 6. Evacuación de heridos con el ALOUETTE. 7. Patrulla de reconocimiento. 8. Posible campo minado. 9. Amet. GIUSTI obre fuego sobre el enemigo. 10. Comino de marcho Cpo. GlUSJI luego de lo rendición. 11. Viajes del ALOUTTE llevando al Gpo. Mor. 12. Reunión, marcha y entrega en posicion Gpo. Mor. 13. Posición enemiga.

Argentine HELICOPTER FLIGHTS 1. First Flight. 2. Landing and escape of the first flight. 3. Second flight. 4. Second flight is fired upon. 5. Evasion and emergency landing. 6. Evacuation of wounded with Alouette. 7. Reconnaissance Patrol 8. Possible minefield. 9. Amet- GIUSTI opens fire on the British position. 10. Approach route of Cpo. GlUSJI after the surrender. 11. Alouette flights leading to Gpo. Mor. 12. Rendezvous and delivery position Gpo. Mor. 13. enemy position.

I think we need to neutralise the tone of the text. Eg British position rather than enemy position. WCM_email 14:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi J., a pleasure as always! Well, I have to concede that your knowledge of Spanish is becoming than my knowledge of English ;).

I have almost forgot about the South Georgia's map, too (2009 or so). The only clarification to make is about point 9; Amet is the abbreviation of Ametralladora, machine gun in Spanish. In the same way Gpo. stands for Grupo, team in Spanish. "GIUSTI" is the surname of the officer in charge of one of the teams ("GlUSJI" is apparently a typo), and Mor. stands for "mortar team". All OK for the rest of the entries.--Darius (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Still at it, some more to check. The English is not a literal translation I've tried to make it clearer - so would welcome some feedback.

1100: La Corbeta Guerrico ingresa a Bahía Cumberland. 1104: Decolo AI03. 1115: Informa AI03 posible lugar de desembarco. 1128: Decolo Pumo sin novedad 1g ola. 1135: Guerrico informa: Personal armado detrás del hospital. 1136: Se ordenó al Puma que orbile en proximidades Bahío Paraíso. Corbeta Guerrico listo o abrir fuego. 1140: Desemborro en lo zona del muelle de la l'olo. 1141: Se ordenó al Puma dirigirse al Paraíso. 1142: finalizó 19 penetración en Bohío Grytviken sin oposicion. 1147: Decoh Puma llevando Y ola con apoyo AI03. 1148: AI03 realizó T aproximación: - Tiro de mortero a proa AI03. - Puma recibe disparos - AI03 bajo fuego - Se intenta contestar fuego desde AI03 1150: Se ordeno a la Corbeta abrir fuego sobre el hospital. - Aterrizaje del Puma y AI03. 1155: Abre fuego con montaje de 20 mm. 1156: Abre fuego con montaje de 40 mm. 1159: Abre fuego con montaje de 100 mm 1200: Viro y sale a Mx. Vd. a efecto de disminuir tiempo bajo fuego. 1225: Se abre fuego sobre el hospital desde una posición favorable

1100: ARA Guerrico enters Cumberland Bay. 1104: Helicopter AI03 launched. 1115: AI03 reports possible landing place. 1128: Puma launched safely with 1st wave. 1135: Guerrico reports: armed personnel behind the hospital. 1136: Puma is ordered to orbit near Bahío Paraíso. ARA Guerrico reports ready to open fire. 1140: First wave disembarked in the dock area. 1141: Puma ordered to Bahío Paraíso. 1142: Penetration of the first wave into Grytviken unopposed. 1147: Puma launched with second wave supported by AI03. 1148: AI03 makes 2nd approach: - Mortar team dropped by A103. - Puma is fired upon - AI03 under fire - AI03 attempts to return fire 1150 ARA Guerrico is ordered to open fire on the hospital. - Puma emergency landing and AI03 lands. 1155: ARA Guerrico opens fire with 20mm mount. 1156: ARA Guerrico opens fire with 40mm mount. 1159: ARA Guerrico 0pens Fire-mounted 100 mm 1200: ARA Guerrico moves to extend range in order to reduce time under fire. 1225: ARA Guerrico opens fire on the hospital from a more favourable position.

And update on the first piece:

Explicación 1. Primer vuelo. 2. Aterrizaje y escape primer vuelo. 3. Segundo vuelo. 4. Segunda vuelo recibe fuego. 5. Evasión y aterrizaje forzoso. 6. Evacuación de heridos con el Alouette. 7. Patrulla de Reconocimiento argentino. 8. Posible campo minado. 9. Ametralladora GIUSTI abre fuego sobre la posición británica. 10. Camino de marcho Cpo. GlUSJI luego de lo rendición. 11. Viajes del ALOUTTE llevando al Gpo. Mor. 12. Reunión, marcha y entrega en posicion Gpo. Mor. 13. Posición británica.

Key 1. First Flight. 2. Landing and escape of the first flight. 3. Second flight. 4. Second flight is fired upon. 5. Evasion and emergency landing. 6. Evacuation of Argentine wounded by Alouette helicopter. 7. Argentine Reconnaissance Patrol 8. Possible minefield. 9. Machine Gun GIUSTI opens fire on the British position. 10. Road march by Group GIUSTI after the surrender. 11. Alouette flights leading to Group. Mor. 12. Rendezvous and delivery position Group Mor. 13. British position.

What do you think? WCM_email 12:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A very good translation as usual, mate. Though the current pieces are fine, maybe a couple of tweaks are not so out of place.

• First piece: point 9 could read "GIUSTI`s team opens machine gun fire on the British position". In point 10 you can use "GIUSTI`s team" instead of "Group GIUSTI". In points 11 and 12 "Group Mor." can be replaced plainly by "mortar team".
• Second piece: 1104 hs: you can mention the type of helicopter (an Alouette, as you know). 1200 hs: entry should read "ARA Guerrico turns round at full speed in order to reduce time under fire." Correct spelling of ship's name is Bahía Paraíso. All OK for the rest. Good work.--Darius (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

PS I've been in touch with a Royal Marine who was on the British side, he's promised me some photos of Grytviken. WCM_email 12:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We are in a some sort of crisis regarding PD pics from the 1982 war since a lot of photos were deleted from commons (these are apparently PD in Argentina, but not in USA), so any source of free images is welcome.--Darius (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Update - uploaded first draft - still working on it. WCM_email 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Hope it could fit into the infobox, a map like this is badly needed there.--Darius (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ARA Cabo San Antonio missing pic

Hi, I noticed that in the past you provided an adequate image for the wikiarticle about this ship. It was deleted from Commons in Jun'14. Maybe you can add another image? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

IP Edits

[1] Hi mate, I see our IP friend has come to your attention. He seems to have a couple of SPS websites that he is promoting. He's been adding them as External Links. WCM_email 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well J., I am allergic to IPs, you known. I will keep a close eye on this one. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Lively Family Massacre.

I am a descendant of the son who was away hunting. I may have additional information that I can provide. Shansel@hallestill.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31C6:5210:51EA:FF7A:23A4:DFAC (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alferez Sobral

[2] Can I just check this edit with you, the previous description seemed a little strange. WCM_email 20:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[3] Don't you just love it when people revert because they can and "its sourced", never mind any common sense. See [4]. Regards, WCM_email 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi mate. You're right, common sense is hard to find sometimes in WP, specially if you deal with IPs (not the case). Well, we have here two separate issues: 1) the type of ship and 2) the operational deployment of the ship.

The type of ship, as designed by the US Navy in 1944, is without any serious doubt an ocean-going tug. As far as I know, the Argentine Navy made no major upgrades to the vessel to challenge the original design of the ship.

The operational deployment of the ship(s) -remember that several USN tugs were transferred to the ARA from 1960 to 1981, not only Alferez Sobral- was as general-purpose auxiliary vessels (rescue tasks, laying and maintenance of navigational buoys, submarine tenders, light transport et alia). This use led the Argentine Navy to classify them as avisos, following an old French definition which describe this kind of ship as "small boats designed to carry orders or despatches". The Argentine avisos are small, light armed liaison ships. They had nothing to do with WWII-era avisos such as the French Boungaville, the Portuguese Afonso de Albuquerque or the Italian Eritrea, all of them long-range gunboats heavily armed and designed to overseas service, correctly compared with modern sloops or corvettes.

In my opinion, the best way out is the lede of ARA Teniente Olivieri (A-2). It reads "The ARA Teniente Olivieri (A-2) is a fleet ocean tug in service at the Argentine Navy classified as aviso.", so we take account of both the type of ship and the operational service in the Argentine Navy. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Guerra de las Malvinas

Hola! Te escribo en español ya que sos argentino :) Quería decirte que estoy ordenando la categoría de la guerra en Commons porque hay mucho material suelto, sobre categorizado o sin categorizar. ¿Qué categorías me recomendas crear? Saludos! --Gastón Cuello (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Es buena idea! Por lo que ví (de lo que hay suelto ahora) hay muchas fotos de barcos y aviones del conflicto. Después hay de elementos como cascos y vestimentas. Después hay banderas, escudos, un acto de Cristina Kirchner, una foto de la Plaza de Mayo, etc. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

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 reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"colonialist crime"

I am guessing you missed the part about local government, merchants, hording food, and a world war ... . A "colonialist crime" implies thaf it was all the responsibility of the small British population over there, and that is an extreme generalization that is not supported. But I digress. OR and opinion, lacking any sources, is grounds to revert BTW.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"OR and opinion, lacking any sources, is grounds to revert BTW." We agree on what really matters here, an unsourced personal opinion should not stand in Wikipedia. But "no" is hardly a good description of this. The rest is, in your own words, a digression. Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Achim von Kries page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

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: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Artist Renderings

Over here there is a discussion about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Artist%20Renderings Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of WP:AVIMOS, particularly the section dealing with images. Thanks for your enlightenment. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Irish National Liberation Army page edit

Hello there, how are you?

May I ask why you re-edited my page of the INLA? The action added was correct there's many sources to the incident that happened on the 16th of June 1994 & was of the INLA's most well known operations/attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdv123 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tdv123, my sincere apologies, your edit was 100 percent right. I simply mistook the 1994 Shankill Road killings with the 1993 Shankill bombing, carried out by the Provisional IRA. Again, my apologies and happy editing!. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

a message

1st Is everything ok? No KGB hunters on tail? besides, this site does not work on some "motors"

All OK, Pietade, just a case of "war tiredness", no fear of the KGB guys or girls ;). A recent published article (Operation Halmazag), another to come, and real life, of course, kept me quite busy these days. I promise to resume business as usual this weekend, mate.

No trouble found as far as I know with any WP tools, let me know if the problems persist. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

An entry

Sorry for the delay, and Happy Christmas season! @Pietade:--Darius (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes and the same from here too!@DagosNavy:—Pietadè (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Operation Madusa

I was wondering why 2-4 infantry ( Delta co and Alpha co) 10th mountain div was not cited in the article. I was there through the whole operation working with the Canadian army. If you need any info I would gladly elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.27.174 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

May be it is a case of mistaken identity, but I have only made one edit to that article, and it was not related to the participating forces. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Article on Opelousas Massacre.

Thank you for the article on this little known massacre of African Americans. I just hope you would have used stronger language to describe some of the events. For example, where you wrote "scare tactics" it would have been more accurate to say "terror tactics". The negroes, in that era, were truly being terrified by the white supremacists, they weren't merely being scared. Additionally, the article says the southerners were unable to accept racial equality. A better way to say this would be that the "southerners were unwilling to accept racial equality". In books I have read on the subject, they swore not to, even when they knew that was what should have been done.

Hi there. My only edit on this page was to perform a redirect, giving wrong capitalization on the article's name. Please, try the page's historial to identify the involved editors or the talk page to point out your concerns. Best wishes.--Darius (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source?

You've been adding this source (Bertke, Donald A.; Kindell, Don; Smith, Gordon (2011). WORLD WAR II SEA WAR: FRANCE FALLS, BRITAIN STANDS ALONE: Day-to-Day Naval Actions from April 1940 through September 1940) and related books to a variety of articles. But as a self-published book, I doubt that it meets the WP:RS criteria. I also don't think that any of these gentlemen have any professional qualifications as naval historians.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Y Replaced for more reliable sources here and here. Thank you for the tip, regards.--Darius (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, although I think you've used other books by the same guy(s) in other articles as well. No need to hunt them down, we can just change them out for more reliable sources as we find them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding material to GA articles

When adding material to GA-level articles like HMS Gallant, please conform to the existing formats for both citation and the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Y Done (see here).--Darius (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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 Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sobre River Plate

Hola, vi que revertiste una edición mía sobre el equipo de River Plate, del cual sé que sos hincha. Por favor, te pido que antes de revertir, leas atentamente QUE cambios hago en la página, porque el ser hincha de Boca no me invalidó jamás para editar la página de River con la mayor objetividad posible.

Lo que hice fue remover párrafos redundantes (donde hablaba de los 36 títulos de liga, por caso), sin intención de remover textos ni menos aún fuentes confiables. Quizás fue una omisión mía involuntaria. Sí puedo decirte que editaré o revertiré cualquier edición (como las que está haciendo un IP anónimo seguramente venido de la Wiki en español) que NO considere los títulos pre-1931, tema del cual se ha discutido largo y tendido, y se sabe bien, son oficiales y válidos.

En ese caso, hay una cuestión de discusión de café antes que enciclopedística, donde muchos hinchas de River se niegan a aceptar los 6 títulos obtenidos por Boca en aquel período, cuestionando su validez. Pero eso ya es un tema aparte, sí puedo decirte que si tenés alguna duda o discrepancia conmigo, me lo hagas saber en mi talk page y con gusto te responderé. Y vuelvo a dejar en claro, en donde no "transaré" es en contar sólo "una parte de la historia", como pasa en muchas discusiones futboleras con hinchas que sólo saben contar desde 1931 en adelante. En eso creo que estamos de acuerdo.

PD: Estos fueron los dos últimos edits que hice en el artículo: (1) y (2). Creo haber utilizado un punto de vista bastante neutral sobre la cantidad de títulos (y cómo denominarlos), como para merecer cualquier reversión. Pero estoy abierto al debate. - Fma12 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fma12:Hola Fma12. Si, no puedo negar mi gran simpatía por el club de Núñez, aunque por una cuestón familiar soy en realidad hincha de otro equipo. Te aclaro que aunque es verdad que globalmente River NO es el equipo más exitoso de Argentina, el párrafo en cuestión y las fuentes que lo sostienen se referían a títulos del campeonato de Primera División, por eso revertí tu edición. Concuerdo si en que había una línea redundante (sobre el noveno puesto histórico), por eso la eliminé.

En lo personal no tengo problema con los títulos de la era amateur, estoy de acuerdo con vos, eran títulos de Liga o Primera División totalmente válidos. Igualmente quiero recordarte que, aunque es válido sumarlos, hay que dejar en claro siempre que los torneos posteriores a 1931 son profesionales, la misma página de AFA hace esa distinción. Es el mismo caso que los títulos internacionales anteriores a la Copa Libertadores: la Conmebol aclaró que no los avala, pero que los acepta en cuanto hayan sido organizados por otra(s) Confederaciones o Asociaciones deportivas. Por lo tanto, deben también incluírse en la suma global de torneos oficiales (La Conmebol nunca eliminó la página donde se suman las copas rioplatenses, ni siquiera después de la aclaración), siempre destacando que los únicos títulos internacionales que avala la Confederación son los organizados por ésta a partir de 1960. En cuanto al IP anónimo no te preocupes, les tengo "alergia" y voy a apoyarte si el tipo se manda alguna edición tendenciosa, provocatiova o no-neutral.

P/D: Totalmente de acuerdo con tus dos últimas ediciones. me parece que mejoran la neutralidad del artículo. Buen trabajo. Saludos desde Mardel.--Darius (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Edición en Boca Juniors (IP)

El mismo IP que estuvo editando en la página de River como te comenté anteriormente, con puntos de vista parciales y poco sentido enciclopedístico, hizo este edit en la página History of Boca Juniors.

Esto es sólo para hacerte saber que no es la primera vez que me toca tratar con este tipo de hinchas argentinos que hacen de Wikipedia un foro de debate futbolero buscando (perdonando la expresión) "quién la tiene más larga", y cero criterio estadístico.

Saludos, Fma12 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Si, fijate que yo casi ni edito en Wikipedia en castellano por eso; y ojo que no es solamente en el fútbol. Tenés gente que defiende sus opiniones peor que en un foro sobre temas como política, historia, ciencia, cocina, lo que te imagines. Acá también pasa, pero hay mucho mas control de los administradores y de los editores en general. Un abrazo.--Darius (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

total de titulos profesionales

Hola Dagos. Es correcto contabilizar el total de los titulos de River al inicio como lo hizo un usuario anterior, dando el total de titulos profesionales de River Plate (asi como otros clubes cuentan tambien los amateurs). La division entre profesionalismo y amateurismo es una realidad, y tanto la AFA como Conmebol y FIFA asi lo hacen, para no mezclar las cosas. Ambos periodos son igual de importantes, lo que no es correcto en mezclarlos. Considerando esto, River es el club mas ganador del profesionalismo con 57 titulos, como tambien figura en la pagina en espanol de river. Porque eliminaste esas sentencias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcamenforte (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hola. No creo que el usuario Fma12 esté mezclando nada, como tampoco creo haber eliminado ningún contenido del artículo, simplemente modifiqué su redacción. Si leés en esta misma página lo que hablamos con Fma12 sobre el tema, mi postura es que tampoco hay que mezclar amateurismo con profesionalismo, simplemente porque la mayoría de las fuentes confiables no lo hacen. Sin embargo, en los últimos años (por favor no me salgas con que es algo de los hinchas de Boca o Racing, eso a Wikipedia NO le interesa) otras fuentes suman torneos profesionales y amateurs, SIEMPRE aclarando la naturaleza de unos y de otros. Por lo tanto, acá en Wikipedia tenemos que conciliar las dos posturas. Como le dije a Fma12, es el mismo caso de los torneos internacionales; antes nadie registraba a las copas rioplatenses, que siempre fueron oficiales, porque no las organizaba Conmebol, pero en las últimas dos décadas las "redescubrieron" y muchas fuentes confiables las cuentan como títulos (incluyendo la propia Conmebol, que no las avala pero las acepta). En este caso también, la suma es válida, pero aclarando cuales son las copas anteriores a 1960 y cuales las auspiciadas por la Confederación.--Darius (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Me permito opinar ya que el usuario User talk:Jlcamenforte me cita a mí. La AFA separa entre una era y otra, es cierto, pero también es cierto que la mayoría de fuentes confiables, ya suma los títulos de ambas épocas, para dar el total de títulos de cada club. Y esto que a algunos les parece algo novedoso, es merced a que un grupo de historiadores hicieron lo posible para que se le diera la importancia debida a los títulos desde la fundación de los clubes, no desde 1931. Nunca quise restarle ninguna importancia a los títulos de River, de hecho (y Darius lo sabe) yo mismo edité la página muchas veces, incluyendo el título 36 (Copa Campeonato de PD, oficializado por AFA en 2013) cuando la mayoría de sus hinchas aún decía "35", sin saber de esta oficialización o no contando el amateur de 1920.

Jamás modifiqué un edit que se refiera a que River es el más ganador de la era profesional; de hecho, yo mismo incluí la información que River es el más ganador de torneos domésticos (44) que el IP anónimo había revertido. A lo que sí me opongo es a la sentencia "River es el más ganador de Argentina", porque es ambigua, ya que decir eso puede también referirse a títulos internacionales. Y la otra oposición es que sólo se sumen titulos profesionales sin hacer mención a los amateurs. Eso significa ignorar una parte de la historia (nada menos que casi 40 años de fútbol, 1891-1930), y esto es Wikipedia, no un foro de discusión futbolera.

Y por último, le aclaro al amigo que el mismo IP estuvo editando tendenciosamente (y ahí pierde sentido de objetividad y respeto como usuario de mi parte) en la página de Boca, borrando información y previamente haciendo ediciones directamente vandálicas como ÉSTA (ver): Ahora le pregunto al usuario Jlcamenforte: ¿Puede dársele cierta entidad a un usuario que hace esas ediciones y luego me dice a mí que "mi fanatismo por Boca perjudica a River"? Todo dicho.

Saludos. Fma12 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Otra vez River ....

Hola, cómo estás?

Sólo para ponerte al tanto que el muchacho que había revertido y armado tanto lío en el artículo de River, parece que ha vuelto a la carga con sus edits (bajo otra IP), pero incluyendo el mismo contenido tendencioso que sólo cuenta los títulos profesionales: Ver aquí. Te comento esto porque ya he retornado a la anterior versión, pero seguramente esto será revertido por el anónimo, y empezará otra guerra de ediciones de la cual no quiero participar: yo la hago corta, denuncio el IP y a otra cosa. De hecho, el artículo de Boca tuvieron que protegerlo sólo para usuarios registrados, porque no paraban de vandalizarlo (este mismo IP).

Si estás con un ratito de tiempo, date una vueltita por la página de River a ver cómo sigue el tema, lo ideal sería que un admin la proteja para que sólo autoconfirmados puedan editarla, y evitar este tipo de molestos. A los que le tengo tanta alergia como vos. Un abrazo, Fma12 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Disculpá la demora, apenas si tengo un par de horas por día para editar. No soy administrador y últimamente no tengo contacto con ninguno de ellos, pero prometo monitorear la página y revertir cualquier intento por parte de usuarios IP o usuarios 'de rojo' (que se inscriben como usuarios para trollear), sino fijate el supuesto yanqui de abajo (igual ya lo borré) ;). Saludos,--Darius (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwerp Diamond heist

Hello there. Why capital "D"? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anna, thanks for your suggestion, already fixed (link). Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

Made my last, or something like this, change to TofDB, for time being, and shall be "away", for some time; so, just letting You know.

Sad news, Pietade...hope you come back soon. As we say here in Argentina, un abrazo y suerte. Thanks for you hard work and best wishes.--Darius (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a break, with XP, and inserted some text today.—Pietadè (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As U can see, still partly "alive"—Toivo (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you back on track again, champ. Cheers! :)--Darius (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Eduard Basurin stated..."

Apparently, someone triggered, say, six times a pistol, and here we are, 6 violations...
So, let's try something other than TASS..., as for me, 'll try to insert, at first, maps... —Pietadè (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pietade, worried about you these days, nice to see that it's bussiness as usual :). Good point about Basurin, even a Ukrainian peasant shooting wildfowl counts as a ceasefire violation for him...XD.--Darius (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Some time ago wondered: if "they" state for every week at least 1,000 killed Ukrainians (according to elementary arithmetic the country should be soon deprived of inhabitants), count ricochets as violations, do they count echo of a ricochet (meaning, not only echo of a shooting) as a violation (this would be a triple violation: shooting, ricochet, and echo, or 4×violation (shooting, ricochet, and echoes of these two; the list can be expanded by counting every single instance of a bullet falling on ground, by the end of its journey;... military statistics)). —Pietadè (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi—Pietadè (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry mate, I will take care of the matter. Cheers!.--Darius (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!—Pietadè (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nighty-night,"emphasized the Finnish obderver"—Pietadè (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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 nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENT - RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR

I note you deleted the whole section about the Russo-Japanese War from List of friendly fire incidents because the British fishing boats initially fired on in the Dogger Bank Incident were not allies in the war. However, this deletion threw out a baby with the bathwater because in the confusion some Russian ships also fired upon each other - that could have stayed while the mention of the British boats could be edited to a token mention. (I thought my own details were minimal enough.)Cloptonson (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Cloptonson, good point and thanks for your suggestion. I think, however, that the notability of the incident is the Russian shelling of the British trawlers, not the FF instance. I've restored the section making clear that the incident was mainly a "fog of war" example, with the proper citation. Thanks again and cheers.--Darius (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Cloptonson (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

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 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

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 Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

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 Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

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 disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi, so long since our last contact, good to see you're still in WkP. Thought this could interest you; I joined as a lot of muy edits are related to Argentina. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

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 two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DagosNavy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

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 America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Corfu Channel incident page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Blackfriars massacre

Hello - please revert your move. There was a failed RM already to that effect, so any further move requires discussion and consensus. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Um ... MOS (and Chicago MOS and Oxford) say not to cap unnecessarily. Tony (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That may be. But we had an RM on this exact issue, and shouldn't just override that without another discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Y Done--Darius (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Fort McMurray Wildfire

You broke this page when you moved it, separating it from the talk page. Can you deal with it on WP:RM#TR to fix this issue please? -- Acefitt 17:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the talk page was fixed after your request, thank you.--Darius (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wildfire renamings

I have reverted your move of 2016 Washington wildfires and have noticed you've made similar moves to other wildfire season articles. While WP:WILDFIRE requests capitalization for named, individual fires, it prefers un-capitalized form for seasons. Per Article title policy, article titles should be written in sentence case if not a proper name (and "2016 Washington Wildfires" is by no means an official, proper name). SounderBruce 22:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your tip, renamings already reverted. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing of Infobox military conflict

Hello Darius,

I just wanted to say my edition of Infobox military conflict is just want to have a good look for readers , no hostility about it. If I did any wrong to it , I apologize. --Comrade John (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, mate, it's me who owes an apology here, my only intention was to revert a previous edit from an IP user. I have already restored your contributions, best regards.--Darius (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, brother.--Comrade John (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

[5],[6] As I'm under a voluntary 1RR restriction I won't be able to revert again. WCM_email 13:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi J. Don't worry, I will keep a close watch on the page. Best wishes.--Darius (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warrenpoint Ambush revert

"I believe it is mentioned in a song" was a turn of phrase. It is, the song is called "My Little Armalite". One of the lines is "Remember Narrow Waters and the bloody Armalite. I don't know how or why one would add a citation so the "see also" section, I have never seen that before. Anyhoo, I am not a big wiki editor, just thought I would throw it out there. Leave it out if it doesn't fit. Cheers, generic verizon user.

Hi mate, sorry for delaying my answer for so long, but I am very busy in real life. My main concern was/is not only the unsourced inclusion of the Wolf Tones in the "see also" section, but the inclusion itself; "see also" sections are intended for close-related topics (sorry for not making it clear in my summary). We can, however, mention "My Little Armalite"'s line in a section dealing with Warrenpoint in popular culture, with the proper citations. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent move

Can you please explain your move of Military history of the Revolt of the Comuneros? "Revolt of the Comuneros" is one of the terms usually used in English and the R is capitalized in running text, like World War II or Revolutionary War. SnowFire (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Checking your recent move history, I see you also moved Catalan Revolt. That one I'm shakier on the actual term used in English language sources than the above (I don't think it's always called "Catalan Revolt" unqualified since there were several of them) but I'm really not sure you can just downcase the r. Do you have any specific sources that don't capitalize the R in that particular context? Or do you just believe that all revolts should have lowercase rs? (If not obvious, I think WP:COMMONNAME rules all as usual, so it should be sources unique to each event that dictate naming - and there's no guarantee of consistency there on capitalization.) SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I found eight different authors who use lower case when the phrase "Revolt of the Communeros" appears inline. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Capitalization is only present in book titles and other printed material dealing with the subject. As for the "Catalan Revolt", in your own words "there were several of them", so the problem there is the name itself (it should be changed to 1640 Catalan revolt), not just capitalization. And yes, IMHO, not just "revolt", but all common names should begin with lowercase letters.--Darius (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

P/S: See also WP:TITLE. Section "Capital letters" reads " names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized. See WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles for details.)"--Darius (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:TITLE, but "proper names" happen literally all the time in describing conflicts - most of them ARE proper names, and only a few are descriptive. It's not "World war 2," nor for a more relevant example, Whiskey rebellion - it's Whiskey Rebellion, Peasants' Revolt, etc. So TITLE only applies to the rare "unnamed" conflicts that are merely described, e.g. Apalachee massacre or the like.

You picked a bunch of sources that mention it in passing. And sure, it *can* be referred to as just "the revolt" that happened to be by "the comuneros," but it's also referred to as "Revolt of the Comuneros" in high-quality English language sources on this particular topic. Since you were using Google Books results, I did the same search myself, and saw plenty of other sources capitalizing the R in running text: google books. I did nominate the article for featured status some years ago and have read the material... if you only have random references in passing, I'm not buying it, and gonna move it back.

Catalan Revolt is more interesting since as noted, I'm not really sure that's the right title for the article to begin with. I still question the move if you don't have any *particular* sources related to that revolt in specific, since as noted, the vast vast vast majority of such revolts are proper names that do capitalize everything. Are you familiar with the revolt, or just moving "on general principles"? If it's just on "general principles", I think the move should be reverted and a formal WP:RM should be filed in the hopes we do find an expert. Surely you agree that it's possible for the world rebellion to be correctly capitalized as part of the name of a topic. SnowFire (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Free Territory of Trieste

I have read the international sources of law that establish and rule about the status of the Free Territory of Trieste.

I consider that removing my edits, which are based not on political claims like the present version, rather, on laws in force (the Treaty of Peace with Italy, the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Free Territory of Trieste, article 7 of the bilateral Treaty of Osimo itself) and on their implementation (the Italian laws that show the continuity of the 1954 special trusteeship sub-mandate, namely the role of the General Commissioner of the Italian Government in the Territory of Trieste and, since 1963, Commissar of the Government in the Region, which inherited the same competences under the law that established the Region) means promoting disinformation, denying the law, and also, to a lesser extent, promoting revanchist thesis that are only supported by Italian nationalists.

Please, revert the changes and restore my version: as I have written, the 1954 Memorandum of Understanding of London did only establish a second provisional regime of Government in the Free Territory of Trieste, without affecting its independence (art. 2) and is an instrument signed by four Governments, not five States.

Also, again, at article 7 the Treaty of Osimo claims the Memorandum's effects shall end only in the bilateral relations between the States of Italy and Yugoslavia, and this is notified to the Governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom because if they had claimed the Memorandum was no longer bounding for the Governments of Italy and Yugoslavia as well, then it would have constituted an official renounce to the 1954 mandate entrusted to the Italian Government itself, therefore, as envisioned by the 1947 Treaty of Peace, the Governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom should have retrieved administration of then Zone A of the Free Territory.

Further evidences are consolidated in the interpretation of treaties provided by virtue of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.0.153.28 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

TERRORISM-RELATED CATEGORIES

Strongly recommend you open up a discussion for consensus regarding what is and is not considered terrorism, especially since all Troubles-related articles are 1RR. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: @Apollo The Logician: @Tdv123: @Asarlaí: Hi. Most definitions (and Wikipedia relies on a majority of sources) remark that one of the key features of terrorism involves the deliberate attack on unarmed civilians, which is not the case for the events described in the articles in question. Agree with you that discussion about this issue is needed, but until consensus is reached the controversial categorization should be removed per WP:LABEL My main concern, however, is that these articles are included in the category without proper inline citations from reliable, published sources depicting the subject as a terrorist act. And as you know, unsourced material should be removed from Wikipedia. Best wishes--Darius (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DagosNavy and WP:TROUBLES. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Submarine incident off Kola Peninsula

Many thanks for your good edits on the article Submarine incident off Kola Peninsula! "Grayling had been tracking the Russian submarine bearing between 155 and 165 degrees to port" is definitely an improvement over the earlier versions, but it still doesn't quite make sense and read well. I realize that you—like me—may be at a loss as to what exactly the sentence is supposed to be saying. I understand the first part: that the bearing from Grayling to the Russian sub was between 155 and 165 degrees (assumed to be true bearings, as opposed to magnetic or relative). But the "to port" part doesn't add anything except confusion. If Grayling was maneuvering (changing heading) while it was tracking the Russian sub (it's quite unlikely that it wouldn't have been maneuvering), then the relative bearing to the Russian sub would change, so "to port" wouldn't make sense or be generally true. If the relative bearing is what is meant by "to port," then the sentence should be changed to convey that. But it's not really a relevant point to make. At this point, unless someone knows what Grayling was doing and what the sentence was trying to convey, it seems best just to delete "to port" entirely and leave the rest, which is unambiguous as it is. If someone understands what has been left out, that should be put into a new, separate sentence, such as "During this time, Grayling was generally proceeding southwest, so the Russian sub was to Grayling's port." But even that doesn't add much of anything useful or relevant to the overall context. What do you think? Holy (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Holy, thanks for your observations. One of the problems here is that the link to the original source is dead, so we have no chance of review. It seems to me that "between 155 and 165 degrees" means true bearings, but this is only a hunch. Iam for your suggestion to delete "to port", giving that Novomoskovsk was certainly maneuvering, so I will shortened the phrase accordingly as soon as possible, thanks again and best regards.--Darius (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done [15]--Darius (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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

Sudestada

Hi:

I have translated this article in French. Since you are the creator of the version in English, I just let you know that I have done a schematic of the main weather pattern for my article (Commons:File:Sudestada fr.svg), just in case you might want to produce an English version yourself.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Good work Pierre, thanks for let me know. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)