User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 12

800:

concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

1394:, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles. 2183: 659: 2656: 31: 931: 2840: 719: 2712: 1342: 4274: 3586: 581: 522: 125: 2292: 3807: 2344: 1088: 1864:, hosting a variety of books and resources related with Serbian history and culture. As far as I know, it does respect copyright (at least for newer works). As for reliability, it's a mixed bag: the material ranges from seminal works by respectable historians and scientists, to fringe-y revisionist-y nationalist-y pamphlets. Thus, every reference to it should be judged on its merits, not just by where it is hosted. 3072:

development of the article but seem to have forgotten in the end - or been too lazy to include, I'm not sure which). Its seems obvious to me now that the article was not ready to be nominated for GA when I did (my failing). I guess that's why we put such articles up for review, but unfortunately one doesn't always get someone familiar enough with a topic to spot the things that are missing. Anyway thanks again.

2481: 4317: 4020: 3649: 3535: 285: 4064: 3264:

Apart from that, 'German Navy' is the name of the current naval formation of the Federal Republic of Germany which has no historic links to the 'Kriegsmarine'. Historically speaking, there are eight or nine different German navies around (depending on counting), so one has to be specific. In the case

1201:

Hi, this is User:Cam. I think you have me confused with someone else regarding work on this project. I haven't edited any articles about battlecruisers to my knowledge. I received an award for this project earlier this year on my talk page, which I removed. I should have notified your project then, I

1908:

Thank you for welcoming message. You're right about error in my good faith edits made by me in "Brandenburgers", I've just copied wrong data. But nevertheless, real Allied (Yugoslav) losses at the graveyard were much lower than German estimates, 179 killed, 63 wounded, and 19 missing, which you can

1366:

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished

466:

I object to the charge I've made any attacks and I think you're mistaken: Parky is not civil (refer to my talk page). Like I said to Misterbee, if others feel insulted they should perhaps blame the cause on their own edits and the weaknesses of them. Some of these people don't deal in logic and when

4229:

Hi - quick note to say thanks for your constructive criticism on this! I've spent the weekend ferreting through the local library and have some material to be going on with, but it'll take a couple of days longer to get it all assembled - apologies. I've updated Reconstitution and the Hundred Days,

3087:

No worries at all, it was a pleasure. I wouldn't say it wasn't ready, I do tend toward the tougher end of GAR. I also know a fair amount about this topic, making for more detailed scrutiny on content than a soldier like me can provide on a ship, for example. And it is a BIG topic for an article. It

2778:

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules

2751:

articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Knowledge and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2,

2101:

there first. It's very close, and you'll learn heaps from the review process. I'm very happy to support any nom of your Croatian War of Independence GAs, and will chip in as needed to sort out any prose issues. You have the technical stuff down pat, anyway, no doubt about that. Just give me a heads

1887:

I believe I understand what Rastko is. My view is that the source in this case is unreliable. It shouldn't be used just because it provides some information we don't otherwise have. The details of the death of Đukanović (and the others) is controversial, and only reliable sources should be used for

481:

Neither of you has been civil (at times), and your response is pretty arrogant, frankly. Taking the approach you've outlined doesn't help WP or you, all you will do is make other potentially helpful editors not want to review your articles. I have a list of editors whose articles I will not review,

3288:

Your point about the multiple navies is understood. However, your change of Third Reich in the infobox to Nazi Germany is unhelpful. In many cases, particularly when referring to the Austrian part of the Third Reich, I have used Third Reich on purpose to show that it encompasses Austria as well as

1007:

by Davide Rodogno? Reason I ask is there is a table at the back (Table 4, p419) that covers the municipalities in Dalmatia. As part of my update to the maps of NDH I am creating a map of The Governate of Dalmatia. You can see half the table in the preview on Amazon but not the whole of it. Cheers

799:

I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on Tomb Raider contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP

450:

Hi there. I didn't know which edit you thanked for but I'm assuming it was the one pertaining to the Blitzkrieg issue. I have added four expert opinions. But this guy keeps deleting them and adding a contemporary source from a Time Magazine journalist asserting it was a doctrine. I don't need to

2750:

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed

3071:

Gday again. I'd like to personally thank you for your efforts here. In hindsight there were a few key aspects of the topic that were missing (especially the legacy section but also the information about indigenous personnel - both of which I had in my mind to include at various points in the

3269:

there is a further one, the 'k.u.k. Kriegsmarine', involved. In order to prevent confusing and misleading readers, I have changed references accordingly, using a phrase borrowed from historians who deal with German naval history in general and not only in the context of World War II.

2734:

switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles.

3941: 2721:

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was

451:

explain how ridiculous that is. But he is choosing to be decidedly uncivil and continues to revert. My concern is that he does not understand the subject that he writes about much less what it takes to reach a Featured Article - supposedly the best Knowledge has to offer.

204:

Hi Jonas. You can use the @FAC ping template (by putting @FAC in the double wriggly brackets) in a comment on the nomination page, or ask FAC Coordinator Ian Rose (who is also the lead Milhist coord) directly on his talk page. I think that is a good decision. Regards,

4360: 2106:

watchlist). Once you get into the rhythm of it, I think you could nominate two or three at a time, and the community will soon realise the quality of your nominations, and they will start to roll along. You have a lot of potential A-Class articles there. Regards,

3337:

Happy for you to change the German Navy bit back to Kriegsmarine, but I believe Third Reich is a completely legitimate and useful redirect to use for Nazi Germany. Please don't change that. Where it says Nazi Germany, use Third Reich, and I'll be happy. Regards,

1037:

Well that is odd! At home I couldn't access that page on Google Books, but here on a different machine I can! I think it must store somewhere how many pages you have accessed on a particular machine and then limit based on that. Oh well, thanks for the help!

1684: 2077:

Hi! Thank you very much for your reviews as well as the offered assistance re Milhist ACR. I'd like to take you up on that offer since my ACR experience is fairly limited. Which articles would you recommend me to take to ACR first? I planned to take the

1871:

admittedly leans towards the latter (as can be inferred from its title), but at least it provides basic facts (by citing the Partisan document archives) who was executed at Ostrog at the time. I agree that we need a much better source though. Regards.

4372: 3363:

Hi Peacemaker. I was hoping you would pick up on that. That's why I left a fairly detailed ed sum. reflecting my awareness of the incendiary connotations of the term and whether it was wise or not to link it. Fully support reversion. Cheers mate

3050:

Would have been better to use an edit summary, so ppl knew why you were doing it, hey? When ppl remove content from Yugo articles and don't leave an edit summary, I usually revert on sight. In any case, I've moved it to the lead. Cheers,

1516:

I would think we could use it directly, ie to state that the commander in question referred to it as a victory, but the reliable academic consensus would be what we would put in the infobox. Depends on the full context, I s'pose. Cheers,

2762:

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on

4191:); none other river monitors are mentioned by name. Page 426 describes the transfer in more detail. Unless the page numbering changed (which I doubt, since Fn19 checks out), the page number for Fn18 should be 426 then. Regards, 1716:

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

1822: 995: 1827:

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

2033:

A very Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, Peacemaker67, and a very Happy New Year! Enjoy yourself and have a really great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men! Love from all the Asher household.

3314:

As 'Third Reich' is a valid redirect, why not use that one? Personally, I refrain from using the term, as it originates in Nazi propaganda, however. But I was more concerned about the "no wrap" thing, than PC.

1710: 1697: 1833: 1479:

Can we use a newspaper from 1965 or image of that report, for claiming the "victory"(in result parameter) which originally resulted UN mandated ceasefire? Even though the newspaper has only represented what a

3014:

No worries, I enjoy reading your articles and usually your English just needs a few tweaks here and there. I think ACR will be easier after this GA though, at least so far as the prose is concerned. Cheers,

2391: 1850: 1135: 4356: 3870: 1691: 3112:

for the time being as I simply don't have the time to give it the attention it needs at the moment. Thanks for your work on the review. Hopefully I'll be able to make the improvements when time allows.

1829: 3250: 3233: 1888:

material covering that topic. That is why I removed it. Rastko itself tends to the fringe-y end of the scale, IMO, although there may well be some sources hosted there that would be reliable. Cheers,

1351:

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was

2755:

articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least

2375: 2359: 1119: 1103: 482:

because they either fail the civility test or arrogantly think they know everything about a subject. It's to your own detriment if you don't want to work collaboratively with others. Cheers,

3854: 3838: 3822: 1397:

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on

3846: 3563: 2367: 1111: 2782:

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

1017: 3830: 3617: 3508: 1423:

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

3558: 2383: 1127: 778: 3862: 3960:

For completing an awesome 24 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers,

4097:

Thanks, have made some changes. However, p.422 of Conway's clearly states the names of the four monitors transferred to the "Yugoslav" (actually KSCS at that time) Navy.

2999:

Thanks for your thorough review. I was surprised this time how bad my English must be. I will try to refrain from submitting such poor penmanship for GA in the future.

3748: 3399: 2808: 2596: 2098: 1962: 1642: 1449: 1268: 879: 622:

Sorry for taking too long to respond on the GAN nomination page. I was away from town for a few days without internet access. I'll get to it in the next day or two.--

4350: 3117: 4454: 3740: 3423: 3150: 3103: 2944: 2772: 2584: 1970: 1780: 1626: 1406: 1244: 871: 553: 4043: 156: 4438: 4398: 4078:

Have you considered to cut the first sentence in two, one on the monitor and one on the class, that way the name ship would have the same name as the ship class?

3689: 2952: 2568: 1260: 308: 2986: 2828: 2641: 2501:, for having "a strong year of content creation in a contentious field and significant contributions to the project through work as a co-ord," I award you this 2020: 1814: 1676: 1310: 913: 612: 402: 4492: 4446: 4430: 3782: 3716: 3465: 3431: 3407: 3192: 3158: 2928: 2912: 2607: 2041: 1986: 1772: 1634: 1276: 863: 499: 368: 3502: 2811:. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. 1452:. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants. 4129:). Confusingly, the A-Hs, KSCS/Yugoslavs and NDH used the same name for river monitors in a few cases, but they were sometimes different vessels. eg The A-H 3993: 3969: 3931: 3060: 1412:

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads:

102: 941: 4414: 3732: 3415: 3134: 2920: 2576: 1978: 1764: 1618: 1252: 855: 360: 258: 248: 3951: 3282: 3024: 989: 439: 342: 233: 214: 4346: 3697: 3097: 1944: 1897: 558: 4305: 4251: 2673: 2066: 1561: 1526: 4214: 4200: 4158: 3347: 3324: 3302: 2534: 2167: 1701:. 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. 3987: 3708: 3672: 3200: 3142: 3035:

Why I removed the section? Because it's already on the end. Now it's again doubled plus, we read about his death before his wartime life. Regards, --

2548: 2273: 2259: 2224: 2143:

When a GA nomination fails, what is the next step? I received the message but it hasn't shown that it has failed on the talk page. Is this an error?

2130: 2116: 2054: 2036: 811:

I'm extending you good faith and accepting your apology as sincere. However, any future personal attacks may be met with a block longer than a week.

4281: