User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 21

3865:

claims. They weren't my POV or opinions or just my feelings. However you demonstrated such attributes by deleting parts of my edit taken from his book. Because you felt it wasn't correct. Based on what I don't know. Not my issue. Peacemaker agreed with the edit, is he also excusing or downplaying Ustase crimes? You almost alluded to him doing so in the talk page and I countered your reply to him. There is no such think as a justified genocide. A another editor had stated on that talk page to one of you. Would it be excusing and downplaying 9/11 if we acknowledge that The West's actions in the Middle-East contributed to it? Of course not. Doing so is a way to shut up dialogue and insight into where these terrorists group come from. A valid comparison as I personally view the Ustashe as a Catholic form of ISIS. I am also not elevating Chetnik crimes as I am editing based on sources I came by. Had I edited based on my own personal research then you would be valid in your claim. The editor who shall no be named, labels those who question Chetnik anti-fascist loyalty or opens discussion about Chetnik crimes as Ustashe apologists. And he claims I have no honor? Please. That was the posts of his that was the last straw for me. So my issue was mainly with him. You deny the genocide happened ( I mean this in a literal sense in that you don't feel there are enough sources that validate it). Fine. But when deleting my edits, at least include edit comments stating your reasoning. Also notice how I don't have issue with Peacemaker or other editors with disagreeing with my point. I have no issue with disagreement.

8721:

Knowledge in general not the Banjica Camp specifically that I have had concerns about. While you may have rewritten some of them, lately a lot of changes were made by other editors. That content is my concern. As well as what information or sources may be missing potentially that you or I may not be aware of. As for claims of the regimes collaborators being “close” in comparison to Ustashe, this was historian Israeli’s viewpoint on pg 32 of his book. Claiming that GNS collaborators didn’t seem resistant to orders. And in fact responsive. He was cited in the intro. I do not claim they were the same as the Ustashe. Absolutely not. Recent edits to the articles were my concern. And articles such as Milan Nedić, Holocaust in Serbia and Milan Nedić’s regime especially in recent edits in the past weeks appear to downplay their complicity and culpability (in their role in the Holocaust again not the camp specifically). Not sure if you see the same thing occurring on Knowledge. Do collaborators bare responsibility in their roles? Do the articles about Nedić, his regime, the Holocaust in Serbia and collaboration appear to be overall accurate to the extent of Serbian collaboration? I don’t know if you had done most the writing of these article but keep in mind recently a number of edits were made to them by various editors hence why I ask. Also because you appear far more knowledgeable on the subject and neutral so I trust your views and judgement. It’s why I tend to come to you with questions. As I don’t fully trust my own probable biases. I hope I’m a bit more clear this time.

3257:, he states that the use of "widespread genocide" was the reason for high amount of human loss in Yugoslavia and that it was also used in revenge. He then goes on about how 'Serbs perished at the hands of the Ustashe" and that "Croats and Muslims perished at the hands of Chetniks". He clearly is painting both as acts of genocide. He claims that Italians up to September 1943 and Germans thought the war assisted in this genocide. Partly independently and partly through puppet regimes. Also saying Italians used the Chetniks, for example, to assist in killing of the Croatian population in parts of territory under Italian control (conflict with MacDonald). As for Redzic, sorry I gave the wrong page, page 155 is the one. Here he details how "after 3 year long Chetnik campaign against the Croats and Muslims, conducted int he form of ethnic cleansing and genocide, to form an ethnically homogeneous territory for ther expansionist Serbian state" the order to incorporate Croats and Muslims into the Yugoslav army was "too late" and "unrealistic" as Chetniks became "desperate" for additional fighting power against Partisans. I am trying to get access to the page for Parson's. Will get back to you. Also, the wiki pages for list of massacres that were carried out in WWII Yugoslavia, there were a number of large scale massacres carried out by Chetniks against Croats specifically. 7431:. Nationality (in the sense of the state to which the person belonged, not the Yugoslav concept of nationality, which is often conflated with the republics and ethnicity) can be and usually is in the first sentence of biographies, but ethnicity usually isn't unless it is inherent to the person's notability. In Pavelić's case, it is certainly arguable that his ethnicity IS part of his notability, as he led a Croatian puppet state and was a Croatian ultranationalist. I don't think the same ethnic connection applies to Stepinac, to the same extent at least. His main point of notability is his position as a Catholic leader in Yugoslavia, but it is also arguable that his Croatian ethnicity and nationalism, and conflicted relationship with the Ustashas are part of his notability. At present I am leaning towards describing him as Yugoslav, but if the majority of the reliable sources describe him as Croatian, rather than Yugoslav, I'm willing to reconsider my view. What I object to is random IPs just changing it without discussion or providing sources. Cheers, 7639:

does not make sense. I neither said whether these terms are good, bad, whatever, I simply stated that they are being used and they really are. I checked the behavior of user Tuvixer and I have seen more people here on Knowledge complaining about similar behavior from him. If necessary, I make a larger report on that because this does not make any sense. Since when is sourced content being allowed to be removed just like that? I mean, I put multiple references there on purpose to show that it can be seen as used often in proper historical literature. I am writing this before putting the references back and also changing the word commonly to word also since even the term socialist Croatia that was used there earlier is not necessarily a commonly used term. This is to address one of the grievances in the newest reason on the talk page for the removal of the sourced content that was there for a while.

3171:

of genocide. Having said all that, his is a minority view regarding the killing, conversion and expulsion of Serbs from the NDH by the Ustashas, which clearly was genocidal in intent and practice. It is unlikely that any sources would consider the killing of Croats by the Chetniks to be genocidal in intent (it is usually couched as revenge or counter-terror), although some sources say the Chetnik killings and expulsions of Muslims in eastern Bosnia was genocidal. As to how to deal with POV-pushers, I tend to deprecate local sources (particularly those from the post-Yugoslavia period on all sides, which are often very biased) and generally use foreign academic sources like Tomasevich, Hoare, Ramet, Milazzo, Roberts, Pavlowich, Mojzes etc on controversial matters within the former Yugoslavia. If the POV-pushing is clear and persistent, and I can provide enough diffs, I take the editor(s) to

1247:

have any historical source data which prove that. Original historical information mentioned by American historian is that he is captured in Croatia (today part of eastern Bosnia) otherwise in that area other historical sources mention Croats, Serbs are extremely rare in historical documents (I'm talking about the historical records which mention local population). And when I bring information that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha coming from Croatia it is not relevant information? Which are these reliable sources which prove that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin when we don't have any historical data which prove that, but we have information that it comes from Croatia. Something is wrong here, as I said this is an ideal platform for mitomania, unfortunately, but I'll try to fight with the truth.

8763:

You took the ”outnumbered” bit right out of my damned mouth. I really don’t know how you stay sane on here. At times it feel like it’s David vs Goliath and I come close to just quitting Knowledge. (I took a break for a while) I’m glad you continue your work. You pretty much are outnumbered on this part of Knowledge and that concerns me the most honesty. The war ended on the Balkan battlefields but it appears not totally. It continues in a pov war on the internet. I wish it would just cease. I guess your peacekeeping duties continue, haha. By the way I read your bio where you were interviewed for Knowledge. Although I’m not an Aussie, but a Yanky. Thank you for your service. I’d hope to learn more about you experiences in the military one day if the opportunity arises. Take care.

5409:. It's bigger than usual (8,752 × 6,890) and not anti-aliased to allow you to edit it without loss of quality - obviously any derived maps can be smaller! I actually found a copy of the original Italian map that defined the boundary of the Croatian demilitarised zone embedded in the PDF I linked to above, so the wavy nature is how it was. The German-Italian boundary was defined in a different way - just stating what towns and features (railheads etc) lay on the German side. So in that case I think that the edge is defined mostly by the boundaries of the districts those towns lay in (unless very large). This certainly reflects what you see in the more accurate secondary source maps and accords with the German practice in Serbia. Anyway, hope you can make good use of it :-) 9527:(3) As for your point about Croatia, if German-Occupied Serbia is to be kept than German-Italian-Occupied Croatia would be valid. As the Nurnberg Trials stated. It was concluded that the Independent State of Croatia was not a sovereign entity capable of acting independently of the German military, despite recognition as an independent state by the Axis powers. According to the Tribunal, "Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country". Otherwise NDH would never have been installed nor would the Ustashe be put in power. This is not to say that they didn’t enjoy more freedom and autonomy compared to other occupied territories. Still, it is evident that to be consistent, one cannot be called occupied and the other not. 7277:

in various areas in Eastern Europe about the events back then. Since various people have various thoughts, biases, and points of views, so to their statements. For example in the book you can find a lot of journalists from that time. It just happens to be that in former Yugoslavia all journalists with opposing views were banned from work, i.e. you had to comply with the Communist Party if you wanted to work there. More specifically, being a journalist was deemed to be a social-political task (in Croatian you were said to be a "društveno politički radnik" i.e. social-political worker)). Therefore, asking such people of what they thought about Tito is somewhat similar as asking a journalist from Nazi Germany working for e.g.

2061: 2258: 8692:

the guarding. But guarding doesn't include actually running the camp, it just means guarding (from escapes and from outside interference). The SDS also helped with executions, and the SP UGB also had a bit of leeway to make decisions about their own internees, but really had to clear pretty much everything with the Gestapo. The GNS was not anything like the Ustase, it was completely under German control and supervision at all times, while the Ustase had a free hand with most things, decided their own policies etc, although they were subject to influence from both the Italians (until September 1943) and the Germans.

9605:

governments ran only under the direct supervision of German forces right down to district level. Equating the two is just wrong, and is frankly a POV used by people wanting to claim that they were as bad as each other, which they were not. In relation to your first point, the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is a terrible compromise title that we ended up with (see the talk archives) as a result of POV-pushers wanting it to be given a title that indicated it was a country. So we used the official title, which is rarely a good idea, as UCN usually applies, and a far better descriptive title was needed.

2244: 3194:

non-Serbs and targeted both Croats and Bosniaks. It being partly repisal shouldn’t mean it wasn’t perusing of Genocide. Revenge doesn’t negate it being genocide. I believe it was stated on the Chetnik page that mass killings in Eastern Bosnia occurrd by Chetniks before any significant Ustashe atrocities took place. If killings of Bonsiaks would be considered Genocide, why not Croat civilians as well? Chetniks didn’t specifically target Ustase sympathizers only. Some sources make the claim that it was revenge against Bosnians as some were aligned with the Ustase. Regardless

399:

hexaremes sailed alongside each other, at the "point" of the wedge. The third squadron (III) was immediately behind them, towing the transports. The fourth (IV) was in line abreast, protecting the rear... As the two leading Roman squadrons (I and II) made for the middle of the Carthaginian line, Hamilcar staged a feigned retreat with his centre, probably by rowing in reverse, and the consuls pursued. The Roman squadron towing the transports (III) fell behind and a gap opened between the two leading (I and II) and the two rear (III and IV) Roman squadrons." etc.

5473:. I think the problem is with the NDH locator map template you are using. The new locator map has slightly different bounds to the map used with the template and this means that points plotted will also be shifted. The new bounds should be LatMin=42.38 LatMax=46.56 LonMin=13.40 LonMax=20.98. So I guess either change the NDH template to use the new coordinates and map or create a new NDH2 template. If that still doesn't work it means the map projection of the new map isn't rectilinear and I'll need to do a new one that is! 2237: 2230: 1532:

ARCAs and have even gone to the effort of putting together a voting guide for the ArbCom elections. I'm actually quite concerned about the ArbCom getting out of its lane, and with particular editors who are encouraging them to do so. They need to handle conduct issues well (which they haven't at times recently), and getting involved in content is not only out of scope, it is potentially a really serious problem for content creators, especially when few current ArbCom members have any content creation chops. Cheers,

5233: 5588: 10520:, my personal reading of it is that the primary MOS guidance is words are preferred when they are mixed. But strictly speaking, you don't need to follow what I'm suggesting, and can follow the exception in NUMNOTES if you wish. Another factor is that you can't use integers to start a sentence, so I think the weight of the MOS falls on the side of using words. But I stress that is just my view. The goalposts do get moved occasionally, of course, because there are those that tweak the MOS over time. Cheers, 208: 2302: 9913: 7892: 7880: 6350: 6265: 5054: 5042: 5021: 4987: 4256: 2463: 1693: 1671: 949: 906: 844: 8673:

Nedic’s regime? It’s worded differently in the source. It seems added with the intent to downplay Nedic’s regimes responsibility and guilt in their actions. As the source states on pg 32 that they were overzealous and their crimes were in nature and gravity “close” but not “similar” to the Ustashe. The intro of the article paints a more sedated picture. In fact the article in general does. So it seems at least. A problem I have had with the article for a while. What do you think about it? Cheers

9988: 9923: 8924: 8900: 7860: 6360: 6338: 6275: 5001: 4343: 4327: 4266: 2592: 2481: 1681: 1631: 1001: 959: 890: 870: 3896:

committee genocide. But they never fully succeeded in finishing. Neither did the Ustashe finish. Thankfully both were stopped. But complete extermination is not what only defines Genocide. The Bosnian genocide was not in whole but still regarded a genocide as that was the intent. But you basically are saying to do believe that was the Chetniks goal during WWII. Cited sources saying so matters. I don't base my edits on my feelings. I explain my edits through citation of books or other documents.

31: 263: 9959: 9941: 6293: 2121: 10000: 8882: 7356:

am close to the issue in me being interested in Croatian history and dealing with a lot of data and documents. The editing that I am doing is precisely because I think that there seems to be lack of neutral information here, especially in the currently referenced book that I mentioned for the reasons I explained. Because of that, would it be OK to replace the potentially biased reference about Tito being an benevolent dictator with a reference to the book that you mentioned?

6313: 6251: 4977: 4234: 2554: 2518: 2445: 1617: 971: 927: 822: 8848:), which is what you should have done when you added it. Commissioner Government is an FA, which means everything added to it absolutely must have a citation to a reliable source, no exceptions. There is a pattern of you adding uncited material and also removing reliably sourced material from Balkans articles (which a quick search of my contributions demonstrates). I suggest you start doing what is expected, or expect to be taken to ANI for disruptive editing. Thanks, 5653: 1401: 496: 11118: 10322: 9395:. Many ACW regimental titles such as 1st Rhode Island Volunteer Infantry do not even say they are a regiment, and this is subpar on precision (lacking size), and subpar on concision (Volunteer is unneeded, as far as I can see). 1st Rhode Island Regiment (ARW) and 1st Rhode Island Infantry Regiment (ACW) are not the same title, and a hatnote on each can sort out any confusion. Can you link to a RI unit article with the same name as the ACW ones you are referring to? 1845: 6853:(this was used to cite a direct quote from a bishop who had seen the massacres) and is Edmond Paris RS? Reading up on him, it seemed he had an anti-Catholic bias and used the Independent State of Croatia to attack the Catholic church according to his wiki bio. Nor sure if you came across his works. These sources were recently introduced in the Ustashe and Jasenovac articles. I’ll put them on the WP:RSN page to see if anything can be determined. Cheers. 272: 10671: 2392: 2252: 1483: 10274: 1127: 2165: 10145: 7683: 9515:(2) Why not use the actual name of the territory making it “Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” as by your own arguments, Serbia was not a country at the time with same borders. German-occupied implies it was a country with same modern borders occupied by Germans. Germans redrew the borders. TMCS would be in line naming wise with the other Holocaust page. It is also the name used on it’s own article. 8707:

jointly run by the German army and GNS was not presented until I added it. While content already their is reflective of the sources. New Information may always be yet to be included. So I hope you didn’t take my worries about the article as a personal attack on your writings. A number of other editors made changes to your work in the intros and body. Not sure if you had the chance to look more in depth the past two years edits.

10850: 9204: 8555: 7078: 5742: 4696: 4065: 1921: 1331: 122: 9076: 10204: 6561: 2898: 2385: 6494: 2199: 2000: 8097:

FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community."! - A friend died in RL, and his obit sais today "keep telling stories about me and dare to laugh". Tough, but I'll try, - this is a start. He's borderline notable, obit on same page as

4526:

articles inevitably being inappropriately edited or changed is ridiculous. Having to check back to see if it was done again. Not sure how you keep level headed. It’s great that the public can engage on here but also problematic. Especially in Balkan articles. So much bitter motives on here. POV pushing and trying to sway the public. I can see why me being an IP can leave bad first impressions.

9979: 8873: 7851: 6329: 5033: 4318: 2509: 1608: 918: 4800: 281: 11186:

careful when using them to attribute success on the battlefield, opposition casualties, etc particularly if they are the only source you have on some particular detail. There are often Union accounts of these battles that should be included in articles at A-Class and higher to ensure we are not just giving a Confederate view of the war or a unit's performance. Cheers,

3280:

future. And no, as Peacemaker said, crimes done by the Yugoslav army to Croat civilians can not be labeled as genocide, and most probably the same goes for Bosniaks (although the scale of crimes and massacres is much bigger, widespread and it's yet another shameful part of the WW2 in YU). Naturally, you will try to label me and whoever does not agrees with your POV as

4144:. We only use a result for the whole war that is in the reliable sources. It is OR to analyse the results of individual battles and decide on an overall result. Sometimes a good approach where there is legitimate disputation over a result can be to put "See Aftermath section" in the result field of the infobox and explore what the sources say in that section. Cheers, 8748:

Holocaust in Serbia articles, although I watchlist them and try to revert the more egregious nonsense. In the first instance, I will review the recent changes to the Banjica camp article as that is the one I am most familiar with. When I get time I'll look at the others, but there are a lot out there and frankly, I'm busy in the RW and I'm outnumbered here.

9620:

not volunteering to take part in the Holocaust either. Again of course not at all equal to the Ustase. Just as Germany, Hungary or so on were not all equal but their names are used for their Holocaust articles. Also should we ignore the Nurnberg Courts findings? Just figured using official names (as I was for NDH) would makes most logical sense.

10987: 1513:

have contributed to the problems with burnout. It looks like we have somewhat differing views on the detail of this case, but are in agreement that ArbCom is implementing penalties which unduly get into content matters. The World War II case was much worse, and I'd if I had my time again I'd post quite different evidence there. Regards,

8179:

my other accounts before this all transpired (although as it turned out Wiki accounts cannot be deleted). So I am fine with never looking back at them. Thank you for the warning a lesson and giving me the benefit of the doubt TonyBallioni. You have my word this will be the only account that represents me on Knowledge. Take care all.

6620: 246:-led peacekeeping missions. Of the 148 new articles and seven new templates he has created 48 are featured articles/lists, 83 are A-class articles and 59 good articles. Over 66,000 edits to his credit. Peacemaker67 is a prolific and helpful reviewer, at all three levels, but especially at ACR and FAC. A long time coordinator of the 11344:(the format of which might need changing to accommodate it). Of course, there may well be significant coverage in local printed sources, which would help him clearly meet GNG. My view may be a marginal one on notability, but over the years I have drifted in this direction. In my first few years of editing, I would have nominated 3902:

aware the context many times. By your logic, I should accuse you of excusing or downplaying Chetnik crimes. But I won't because that would be nonsense and opinion driven. Just because genocide is committed in revenge doesn't negate it was genocide. I will clarify this with a excerpt from Tomaseviches book in reply to Peacemaker.

3860:

claims of my character that are untrue. In interactions with me you did not use sources to prove my sources wrong. Never did I make edits that I didn't back up with factual sources. That is incredibly dishonest to say. And proving my initial point. Firstly, accusing me of downplaying or excusing Ustashe crimes is definitely a

9590:, the actual name of the territory as we are using official names for entities? And as I provided in point (3) of my reply, why mention the occupation of one territory and not the other? As courts ruled Croatia to be occupied by Germany. Surely then it should be made known in the title that NDH was installed by Germany? 9668:. The common name of the German-occupied territory of Serbia isn't clear, see the section in the article that shows how many ways it is described in reliable sources. This is a completely different situation from the NDH, where NDH is the clear common name, and precisely differentiates it from modern Croatia. 3224:

targeted. As was any non-Serb. Far less died in the 90’s genocide yet it was still deemed genocide. I wouldn’t make the claim if I didn’t come across convincing sources. Also it just seems logical but personal opinion is irrelevant. I’m surpised you never came across, not one, source that called it genocide.

3337:

Knowledge not on the sole discussion of genocide. Claiming I’m on a “Holy War” is just laughable. You tried to use MacDonald’s quote to argue against Genocide. And using thebterms “crimes carried out by the Yugoslav army”.... That isn’t bad faith? I’m not engaging with you any further on this talk page.

10811: 10543:

No worries. There is a currently undergoing small project among several editors moving ACW articles to a standard titling that reflects normal military unit titles, including the size of the unit at the end of the title, and dropping "Volunteer" is it is unnecessary to meet the precision requirements

9645:

As for you mention of an old talk page discussion, why would using the official name be a bad idea? Just curious. I mean Independent State of Croatia wasn’t exactly completely Independent but relative to other Yugo territory it definitely was. But it was the official name. Is there something I should

8762:

Yeah sorry, my mind runs faster than my fingers. And I tend to over explain things which may only make the ideas I try to get across all the more confusing. If you happen to get a chance please do review the changes that were made as well as the state of the other articles. I know you are quite busy.

8384:

and everything is clear. It is the first time I read this article and it's amazing that such article exists on wikipedia. Without a single concrete RS, only evidence are political pamphlets. I still can't figure it out that this article is part of wikipedia, it is more in line with the war period and

8096:

Thank you today for the justice you did to it, "an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to

6051:

I'm only seeing one additional image, File:RN Premuda.jpg. There is no information to confirm that this is in fact Premuda, not information about when it was taken or who by. The link on Italian Knowledge is dead. As far as I can tell, someone found this on the internet and uploaded it claiming it is

5310:

It enhances by allowing readers to see what the rank looks like, without placing the image in higher resolution somewhere further in the text. If already has the unwritten rule that everyone has an icon of their act, then let the unwritten rule apply to everyone. Recently the French generals received

3907:

My edits aren't citing my opinions. I made those edits because I had sources to present as backing them. otherwise I wouldn't have made such edits. I will not entertain this pointless argument of personal matters further. I am here to discuss the validity and strength of the sources I found. I am not

3677:

Unfortunately, those photos don't appear to be public domain, so they can't be used, and those without an identified reliable source in which they were published cannot be used for the hull symbols. Anything of Freivogel's is reliable, so the hull symbol for Beograd could be added with that reference

3068:

what does someone do if they want to resume systematic Quality Assessment of history-related articles, for example? or if they need help with an article? Or if they need help with a template, or formatting, or coding etc etc? the least we can do as a WikiProject is provide some data set, or directory

1512:

Just on this case, when I consider the ArbCom candidates on the weekend, I'm going to pay close attention to their responses to the question you asked and their views on cases like this one. I think that the current committee too enthusiastically got itself involved in content matter issues. This may

622:

I did contribute to it, but the one who did the heavy lifting is effectively retired from WP. I'd have to read it through and see what sources I have that mention it. For FAC it would need to include some additional Yugoslav sources in order to be truly comprehensive. I'll have a look at let you know

8747:

Ah, OK, I understand now. Yes, I am concerned by the level of POV pushing on WWII Yugoslavia articles recently by editors who are demonstrably not editing neutrally. Some of it is getting close to being brought to the attention of ANI or ArbCom. I haven't really done much work on the Nedić, GNS, and

7638:

Hi again. My sourced content was again removed without previous discussion and I feel as being a second class editor here. I repeat - the content was sourced, I even added the page numbers, and now there is another excuse, namely that the content does not reflect to the stuff that I used it in. That

7540:

Exactly, it should be discussed on the Josip Broz Tito talk page, but unfortunately I do not see that you engaging in a discussion, just reverting edits with merit and inadvertently helping a disruptive user to push his own agenda. And I am not saying that everything should be removed, that is clear

7355:

I do not doubt that there are numerous such books, but then it should be books like maybe the one you mentioned that ought to be referenced, and not the one being currently referenced there because that book contains biased memories one of which is referenced in the current version of the article. I

7276:

I agree that the Shapiros' book is probably more focused to the area, but I was thinking more about the way the sourcing was done. I am not sure whether you checked the actual part in the book talking on that so if you have not, I can try to explain it. The book contains testimonies of people living

4525:

It was a case of a rouge IP removing sourced material and when I reverted it, another editor kept undoing my revert even intentionally deleting “anti-Croat policies” despite the source backing up the term. They seemed to have stopped... for now. And yes I should make an account. The whole anxiety of

3895:

Many of the sources are not "Croatian Websites" and the Chetnik page literally talks about the Chetnik Directive if 1941 to form a Greater Serbian ethnically cleansing of non-Serbs to which the Chetnik head leader was aware as per multiple sources. You even said you don't deny that Chetniks tried to

3859:

You have made edits based on emotion and personal opinion before. On the Genocide of Serbs page for example. And have been reverted and called out by other editors for it. Strange you accuse me of doing that. You are using your own opinions in your response as well as edits you have made. And making

3098:

by the way, I will retain the title of "admin coordinator" for myself. this simply means I am the person who took it upon myself to do the actual admin tasks, update the page, contact others, etc etc. Anyone else is free to volunteer for this role and title, just as I did. it is simply a descriptive

1246:

How they not reliable when most has original historical documents as a source. The rest was written by historians and there is no reason for them to have lied, that lie can be easily disputed. I am curious how come that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is referred in the Knowledge as a Serbian when we don’t

649:

and are still active. Thanks for the insight. I wish there were more people on here to churn out such articles for the other Balkan regions as he has done a bang on job for Serbia wiki articles. I may try to reach out to him/her for pointers. Thanks Peacemaker. By the way, I read your bio about your

9619:

I don’t see how there would be equating of the two. Saying both territories were occupied is not saying the same or equal scope of brutalities occurred nor controlled to the same extent by Germany. One is a territory, another a full on state. But it’s not as if Nedic’s regime and collaborators were

9470:

because that title implies that there was a country called Serbia at the time (which there was not), or that the article is about the Holocaust in the territory of the current country of Serbia, neither of which is correct, and the latter of which would be ahistorical IMHO. I'm happy with it as is.

8178:

Absolutely. Now that I know the rules more clearly about multiple accounts on Knowledge, I will be sticking with just this one to avoid future problems. As I agreed. I will also make sure this account stays logged in permanently to avoid my IP being exposed or used. In fact I was planning to delete

8163:

Yeah, just to clarify, in my view the use of multiple accounts was a policy violation but I was willing to unblock on a one account restriction, which hopefully will solve the problem. If there is continued use of multiple accounts after the unblock, it will be a violation of that unblock condition

7711:

The whole article needs a rewrite. In the absence of anyone willing to do that, my focus is on ensuring that the lead and article is at least semi-balanced. I will take a look at Hoare and Tomasevich and add what they say about the origins of the Ustaše hatred of Serbs, which is what the Background

4005:

I agree. Let’s. Also I had mentioned twice there was a conversation on that talk page. I thought going to another editor’s talk page behind the scenes was a no no? As was stated in the past. On the given page from Tomasevich’s book, he literally talks about genocide and how the victims of this were

3870:

Yes I am biased in that I fear that groups of victims and perpetrators will fall between the cracks of history due to failed acknowledgment. Failure to acknowledge history lead to the atrocities of the 90's. Denial of Ustahse and Chetnik crimes lead to history repeating itself . And this is a place

3170:

Yes, frankly it is a poorly worded sentence in MacDonald's book, and I think the later quote is worse, and isn't consistent (as he claims) with Lemkin (or the Srebrenica case). Unfortunately I have not been able to find an academic source that criticises MacDonald's interpretation of the definition

1275:

There is no one on talk page, because there is no concrete evidence that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin. And what we have from talk page when that information(Serbian origin) still exists in the Knowledge article. Go to some forum and prove that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin, you

10510:

G'day TwoScars, you are welcome. Ping me once you've finished. Exactly, once you've addressed my comments, I would be happy to review it for GAN if you nominate it. I doubt I'll find much more. It is pretty clear to me that the preference in the MOS, expressed in the first, stand-alone sentence of

8691:

I essentially rewrote the article sometime over the last couple of years, so I know it reflects what the reliable sources say about the running of the camp. The Gestapo were always in charge of the camp, and the gendarmerie then the SDS helped them guard it, and eventually were responsible for all

8672:

One other thing, for the Banjica Concentration Camp article, the newly added “ which was under full control of the occupational forces” part after Milan Nedic’s government is mention. Do you think this gives the impression occupational forces had full control of the camp instead of full control of

7525:

There is no policy which states that edits by socks or possible SPAs need to be reverted on sight. Like all edits they are treated on their merits. These edits are reliably sourced, and should stand. I don't believe that the sentence you have quoted at all covers the material introduced by Nbanic.

7281:

what they thought about Hitler. Should they say that most people saw him as a good guy and, then using this in an article as this one, and sourcing it by referencing a book that holds recollections would in my opinion be bad sourcing. This is what I meant. I apologize if I did not state it precise

7174:

Paris as well. Though a good amount of well sourced info has been added too. But there have been issues where new information was added to the Wiki article that isn’t reflected in the cited news article. And seemed like opinionated personal conclusions. Which is worrisome. For example the Thompson

3901:

In many of my posts, I explicitly talk about The Ustase Genocide and how the Chetnik Genocide was largely in revenge of Ustahse crimes. I also stated multiple times that the number of Serb victims was way higher than number of Croatian or Bosniak victims. So you point about context is moot. I make

3514:

I'm not really interested in the WikiProject Council, sorry. I think you'd be better off trying to identify a few other editors who are interested in reviving WikiProject History. A few things that work for us at Milhist are having a monthly newsletter where we highlight achievements by individual

3279:

you have been mentioned as well. If you have some sort of dispute or a problem with my views - bring it on, like a serious person would do. I did not report your remark that I was mentally unstable, or whatever the wording was (you will know what I am talking about). I shall not tolerate it in the

3193:

I thought you were in agreement with it being labeled genocide. Given you agree the MacDonald quote is poorly written. However Tomasevich, Parsons and Redzic claim it as genocide. It has been stated in multiple sources that Chetniks pursued a Greater Serbia over the region that is to be rid of any

398:

Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at every mention. Ie "The first two squadrons (I and II) led the way, each arrayed in echelon, together forming a wedge. The squadron on the right (I) was under Vulso and the squadron on the left (II) under Regulus. The consuls'

10791:

I see though aren’t Herman and Peterson considered controversial for denial of the Bosnian Genocide as mentioned on the Bosnian Genocide Denial Page? Are their more neutral sources? On the Op Storm page it states exodus instead of expulsion and that the ICTY ruled it not cleansing hence why I was

9711:

Huh, so it’s a loose translation of the German name, not actually an official name. I assumed based on the article name for that territory. Which proves your point how it’s problematic. Should be changed. But as you said apparently it was a shit show in the talk page. Thanks for being patient and

8706:

Firstly a number of edits have occurred since your last edits a couple years back to the article. Those are the edits I had concerns with. I am not saying the article is entirely wrong, let me be clear. However it may not always have all information covered. For example the fact that the camp was

6816:

I see. This was the matter I had asked you to take a peak at on the Jasenovac talk page week or so back. An editor has been adding ne edits that seem to use questionable sources. I will check with WP:RSN as you advised. Still learning the process of all this on Knowledge. Thank you and stay well.

3864:

and false. Not once did I excuse their genocide against Serbs or downplay in any of my edits or talk posts. Including other events and actions that contributed to their formation and crimes is not excusing or downplaying. I included insight from Tomasevich, a well respected historian who made the

8720:

My concern is what may be missing. As for my comment, the new line I referred to was entered by another editor recently, not yourself. As well as the recent edits made to the article which don’t appear to be done by you. Also I meant the articles dealing Milan Nedic’s regime and collaboration on

3819:

I'm not denying that Chetniks were responsible for mass killing of Croats, they were. I'm uncomfortable with using Redžić for a claim of genocide against the Croats because of his ideological alignment with the Partisans and their propaganda against the Chetniks. I'll wait until you have Parsons

3238:

That is not correct. Tomasevich makes a general comment about genocidal actions in his conclusion, then lists some mass killings. Tellingly, in his 1975 book about the Chetniks, he does not say their killing of Croats was genocide. The second one I can't verify, and Redžić doesn't say that about

3078:

my real role and title should be "admin coordinator." meaning that I will be glad to handle the admin tasks of actually trying to get the project up and running, and assembling a few people to actually do so and to help others. but then we should add roles for others such as eg people working on

3058:

Okay, that is really excellent. I am glad to have your involvement. In fact, I am contemplating creating a list of active co-coordinators, facilitators, volunteers, etc, or something like that. the reason for this is that given the project itself is moribund right now, and yet we supposedly have

1531:

To be honest Nick, I didn't pay enough attention to the initial Poland case, and should have twigged to the incursion into content, as I believe it is similar to some aspects of the GWE case in terms of ArbCom overreach. I wanted to lay out my concerns, which is why I've commented on both Poland

11185:

No worries, you are doing great work with these articles, and every one I look at is better than the last one. I think the main take-home message is that academic-standard works are better, but you can use sources like Tucker for routine material like unit movements, changes in CO etc. Just be

9778:

I was thinking about if it is a good thing to make a proposal somewhere to name all Genocide articles in line with the political entities of that time rather than with today's countries. Or it might be better to judge case by case instead of all with the same rationale. Something worth thinking

9696:

No, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is definitely not the common name in sources (it is a translation of the official name in German), which is why a descriptive name would be far better, but after the last brouhaha, I have no interest in reviving that particular fight, as we will

4020:

No one is going "behind the scenes". I posted it to his TP because he was the arbitrator between you and Sadko, and I sought clarification. You've posted many times here regarding issues. I assume you mean that you mentioned the discussion to me. You did once, when I reverted your edit. Sheesh.

11428:

We are all volunteers here. You come up with insights or criticisms, put all this verbiage out at the DYK, and choose not to fix the article. Do what you want; your choice. I was trying to fix the problem (I edited the article, and then you added your snarky accusation in the edit summary),

9604:

Taking your last point first, because they were fundamentally different. One was a puppet state that ran itself, made its own laws under its own initiative, but had Axis troops occupying it, the other was an occupied territory, not a puppet state or even anything like one, the collaborationist

9567:

which would be clearer that it was an occupied territory with defined borders, not a country with similar borders to modern-day Serbia. But this is unlikely to fly because there are editors who prioritise concision over clarity in article titles, and no doubt also some POV-pushers would prefer

8646:

Reading the cited source it seems the author sates that if the estimate for when Nazis began the killings is correct, then the Ustashe genocide would precede the killing of Jews by the Nazis. The edit implies that the author is certain of the timing of events but they are actually deemed as an

8425:. I encourage any interested editors to improve the article, using academic sources rather than news sites. If this has been an enduring phenomena, it would have been researched by credible academics, not just journalists. The source I linked provides some detail on the first appearance of it. 7207:

I disagree with changing the sense of what a reliable source has said, but providing an alternate view is fine, but it needs to be a good quality relatively recent source that takes into account everything that is known from research over the years, rather than the rather hysterical and highly

7145:

It seems much of it was brought back regardless. Also it seems some of the added material doesn’t match what the sources say. For example A Thompson song labeled as being about “Ustashe claimed lands”. Please take a look. Seems like opinion rather than fact. The modern day section seemed a bit

5627:

Operation Storax should probably be a list in its current shape, but should be expanded into an article if other nuke test articles are any indicator. I would leave it as an article for now, in the expectation that it will be fleshed out one day. Re coording, not really, I see you are checking

3881:

Most of the time Serbs, Croats and Bosnians is not written in alphabetical order. So meaningless point. I reverted your edit so that is why it went back to that order. I am not pushing anything with that. Other editors who reverted me did so because I did not include citation next to the link.

3336:

You are proving my point. I never called you mentally unstable. You are doing nothing but attacking me and it’s pointless. You claim I am POV pushing yet my edits are backed by sources I include. I said you were POV pushing and off comments in talk sections and based on your overall actions on

3088:

at some point I may create such a list, and probably start by adding your name. is that okay? I hope it is. there is no extra work that you would neeed to do. I simply want to have at least two or three names provided there of editors who are active in a role to help others, and who can answer

8365:

Question, Peacemaker. Is it violating Knowledge rules for me to ask you your opinion on an article? I was accused of such by another editor on my talk page. Perhaps even insinuated that Mikola22 is my sockpuppet or that I informed him to come here. Which as I told them, you all can verify for

3223:

I posted three in my previous reply. See the citations. I don’t see how it is false equivalence. What do you call aiming to wipe out an ethnic group from a new established state? I fail to see how when this befell the Croatian population, the term doesn’t apply. Both Croats and Bosnians were

2008:

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of

8328:

I read that article and the sources are portals or political pamphlets. I know that some books were thrown away, communist books, Serbian books, etc but compare this with events in the Nazi NDH it makes no sense, at least not without the acceptable reliable sources. What would be your advice

4006:

Serbs by Ustashe and Croats and Muslims by Chetniks. It is unmistakable and painfully clear on that page. There is no possible question. You speculation on Hoare is just that, personal speculation. Not what’s there. He specifically talks about Genocide used as counter to Ustashe atrocities.

3043:

Thanks, that is very interesting. I suggest you post on our project talk page to inform all our project members that someone is working at WikiProject History. There is a fair bit of cross-over between our projects, but I had thought yours was largely moribund. I'll take a look and make some

10807: 8249: 7541:

I hope. User Nbanic was proven to be a sock puppet master and was blocked because of disruptive behavior. Now he is using another IP sock puppet. You don't believe that the sentence I have quoted at all covers the material introduced by Nbanic? I have quoted the exact same sentence. --

7226:

I did not change it therefore in the last revision, but in my opinion it should be changed because it seems to be an example of bad sourcing. I explained it in more detail in the talk page. If you want, you can take a look at it there and if necessary, I can explain it in more detail.

1554:

Yes, I agree. As ArbCom had been pretty good at keeping out of content matters (quite ruthlessly rejecting case requests at times) over the previous 5+ years, I didn't really notice that the current committee had reversed that position. Thanks a lot for the voting guide. Regards,

5517:

wrong so I had to re-render it. Rather than create a new template I have simply updated the NDH 41 and 43 locator maps. This means you don't use the new file I uploaded as an Alt now. I did a random check of some of the pages that use the NDH locator and all seem OK. And on your

10771: 6178:

Given the space available in the article and the limited value of the two aerial images in terms of seeing what she looked like, I just don't see the need for them. The others have no information about their author, when they were taken or their sources, so they are unuseable.

5900:

The image file page for File:Zerstörer_Dubrovnik.jpg fails to give an author and their year of death, which is required for that licence. It also has no source other than some online collection. It is definitely not PD based on the information available on the image file page.

11339:

might say he is presumptively notable as president of a country, but he still needs to clearly meet GNG as well and the use of Encarta for the details of his personal life gives me the impression that with the current sources we would be better off with a beefed-up entry on

10486:

Where reliable sources (which Shapiro is) disagree, we compare and contrast them, we don't pick and choose which ones correspond with our own opinions. Instead of quibbling over one word in the lead, why don't you start working on the body of the article, which needs work?

7653:

By the way, I actually have some of the referenced books not in the paperback, but in the digital format, which I can prove if necessary by citing more content from there that is not available on Google Books and I can provide more information on the surrounding content.

8208:. AWM pics are almost universally owned by the government (the AWM is a government body) so despite being out of copyright, we use the approach of File:Casualties from the capture of Leane's Trench.jpg. Suggest you use that, which obviates the need for a US tag. Cheers, 2178:

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Knowledge. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.

250:

and currently serving as the lead coordinator. He seems to be everywhere in the project, offering sage and calm advice, and making sure that everything runs smoothly at the editor interface. Exactly, it seems to me, the sort of selfless editor this award was created to

8385:

propaganda. So I don't need anyone to tell me what to say and write, this is a wikipedia with tens of thousands of editors and anyone is free to edit articles. What should I do @OyMosby, to run away from you? Therefore this is my wikipedia as well as from all of you.

650:

service in the military and NATO, especially during the Yugoslav Wars. Have you written more elsewhere on you experiences of that time? I'd really like to read more about it. Especially from someone outside the Balkans, such as yourself. Thank you for your service.

9536:

I am for “Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia” and “Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” as the article titles. I have held this position since June 2nd when the RfC was started. I hope I am a bit more clear now. Cheers

2856:

G'day, Sm8900. I have a subpage called "The Pool Room" where I keep all the various trinkets I've been given over the years. There is a link near the top of my user page. If you hover the cursor over each one, there is usually a short explanation. Cheers,

8313:

relating to the removal of over 100 Serbian books from a library on Korčula. I haven't looked at the article in detail as yet, and given the significant uptick in POV editing in the Balkans space at the moment, I probably won't get a chance for a while.

5987:

Do you read the headline? The title video on British Path says that this is Princess Olga of Yugoslavia. If you've seen a photo of Princess Olga at least once, then you recognize her on the video hitting the wine bottle. Behind her is her husband Prince

793:

Usually we would give it a month from nomination, but with two opposes and no apparent action on the comments, I would usually put a comment on it indicating that it will be closed in a week unless action is taken to fix the problems identified. Cheers,

2664:. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being 9587: 5823:

Did you have a chance to look? It seems out of place for the scope of the article. And I am unsure pf the sources for those quotes. Being are on the talk page I figured I’d get your input. Seems same quite was put on the Ustase page as well. Cheers.

8407:, I took a look at the article. The tone of the article needs some improvement, and due to that I might rewrite some parts. I am not much familiar with the topic, though if I find some info sourced to RS, I will make some content additions. Cheers, 4540:

IP vandalism and POV pushing are very common on Balkans articles. I only watchlist WWII Yugoslav ones and I usually have to revert one or more edits everyday on several articles. Generally IPs in the area are treated with suspicion for that reason.

4118:

It isn't about what the original one was, it is about the most appropriate category. The Ustashas were an emigre movement, terrorist organisation and political party, and I think the overarching Fascist organizations category is more appropriate.

2621: 9816:

Yeah, a Wiki-wide proposal could start a large-scale Wiki war. That is why a case by case stance might be a better way to follow. That way Balkan Genocide articles can have proper names regardless of what happens with non-Balkan counterparts.

5553:

Thanks! I've made one final tweak - I didn't think the default 1941 NDH locator map showed the zones very well. So I updated the first map I did to the same projection and shaded the zones as well as marking the sea boundaries. I've changed

7771:, and I'd be open to applying any combination of these. The thing about putting images into the table is that, while in the first few years there are a lot of people with images, the further it goes along the fewer images there are of people. 5446:

with a pog for Knin, expecting Knin to be in Zone II, and found that it is showing in Zone I. Yugoslav text sources indicate that Knin was in Zone II, and I'm just wondering if you could double-check the Zone I/II boundary (the border of the

1784: 8311: 8453:

I'm used to Antid's rants, and generally ignore them. He has no insight into his own behaviour, and as a result, is unlikely to change his behaviour. I mean, he got a long TBAN (now lifted) and that didn't change his behaviour one iota.

7608:

Why that is matter where did i put my explanation. Give me yours or stop reverting. I saw your knowledge on article Petar Baćović. You were keeping reverting me, it looked like Baćović could have teleportation device back in 1942/43...

3696:

I am not saying that these photos should be included in the article, but that they are evidence of these hull symbols. Maybe these pictures can be put as an external link. For Freivogel, page is 16 and date of first photo (no colored

3876:

Also note, you claim one would not say "Nazi Genocide against Poles" yet you made a recent edit to the genocide templates to say "Genocide of Serbs by Ustashe" I simply followed your formatting. Also as for why Croats and Bosnians,

9564: 1780: 7487:

Was super weird not to be able to go to Dawn Service. Stood at my doorstep for 15 minutes at 6am, as requested by StandAtDawn, looking at the silent street. Played the recording of the service at Scott Base about three times!!

1210:

On the talk page I exposed that all presented information are accurate and written in books by historians, deleting that facts is because someone does not like it, I'm here alone and I'm interested in what to do? Thanks.

6163:

I fail to see why anyone would need to see a separate list of commanders, none of whom are notable. It would be incomplete in any case, as we have no source for the Italian and cannot be sure there weren't other captains.

10515:

is that "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.", followed by "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Whilst there is an exception under

4377: 1276:

won't be able to prove it. But this information still stands on Knowledge read by ordinary people's, students, etc. but it is a lie. That's why i asked is Knowledge a private portal? I don't know what's going on here?

1053: 10623:

For cheerfully reviewing a number of my Missouri Confederate series articles, and keeping good humor the whole time, even though since I wrote one a day for a stretch, they all had the same issues over and over again.

4572:

Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as

3146:

I suggest discussing this on the article talk page (which I watchlist), not here. For example, you need to explain why tributetoliberty.ca is a reliable source. But do this on the article talk page, not here. Thanks,

1974:

I agree that the Tesla page is a mess, and the talk page gets rather heated. I tend to avoid it for that reason. If you believe that there is a pattern of personal attacks on any page, the best place to report it is

1225:

What you do now is you discuss the edits on the talk page and a consensus is developed about their inclusion (or not). That is how Knowledge works. Be prepared to explain why you think these sources are reliable per

7763:

Should I split it into a presidency and list of presidents article? I certainly think there's enough content to split, but an earlier time I tried to it was reverted. However, there's a lot more content this time

9797:

Pretty major project, and you will get a lot of pushback from those that prioritise concision over precision. I'd just be happy if the Yugoslav ones were better titled, and leave the others to their own devices.

4510:

I had a look and couldn't see anything egregious. I strongly suggest you register, as remembering any IP address (assuming it is static) is difficult, other editors are more able to recognise a username. Cheers,

8148:

No, as you have been unblocked you can unstrike them. I strongly suggest you do not use multiple accounts again or edit as an IP. You are very fortunate to have been given the benefit of the doubt in this case.

7249:

It is not an example of bad sourcing. Shapiro and Shapiro is a reliable book focussing on the subject area. It is better than the one you are using for the alternative view, because that is a more general book.

6949:

It isn't PD in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country where the cabin is, because there isn't FoP in that country. So AFAIK it can't be PD in the US because it isn't PD in the source country. I'm not familiar with

8954: 4368:

are now enabled on the English Knowledge. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at

7316:

page 101, is another example. You seem to be very close to this issue given your family history, and I urge you to strive to achieve a neutral point of view with your editing. This is not the place to try to

3718: 10792:

confused by the List of Ethnic Cleansing Campaigns page edit. I now cases of ethnic cleansing and war crimes occurred during the operation but wasn’t sure if the entire operation itself was labeled as such.

5087: 9682:

I think I see your point. Though isn’t the common name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia not German-occupied territory of Serbia ? It seems straightforward and differentiates from modern Serbia.

3890:

I have included RS that states the killing of Croats as genocide. Personal feelings, interpretations and opinions are irrelevant to this issue (Taker your own advice here). The sources speak for themselves.

8815:

You know, you are one who is disruptive. I think I prove I don't lie and I know better history of my country than you. If it something forgotten by Tomasevich, it doesn't mean it is untrue. In article on

6768:

of rewarding editors for producing quality content. You can sign up to any task force that interests you. If you would like some guidance on writing your first article, I recommend our academy article on

4430:

that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration

3208:

I don't agree with the description of what was done to Croats being referred to as genocide. That is false equivalence. What sources specifically say that the killing of Croats by Chetniks was genocide?

9148:

I moved the article back as requested because recent controversial bold moves are automatically restored to the previous title. Feel free to start a move request on the article's talk page if you wish.

3654:

was 2884 metric tones. This is what German sources say. I also found old paper with data from the late 30's when in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia testing was perform with the displacement of the destroyer

8046: 8840:

Then, after you have verified that that material in another article actually appears in the reliable source in question and is accurate and reliably cited, add the citation when you add the material,

7676: 6132: 6002: 5942: 5872: 5320: 5283: 3749: 3664: 4749:

G'day AR, my only area of knowledge (with access to related sources) regarding the invasion of Greece is with respect to the German ORBAT. I will take a look and see what I can find though. Cheers,

312: 10690: 6798:

Doesn't look RS to me, looks like a website for a local association of people associated with victims of the camp. No information about the editor-in-chief Dusan J. Bastasic. Suggest listing it at

4629: 4574: 4365: 2614: 7783:

I looked at it quite closely, and you deleted reliably sourced information from Fine that gives one view of the trial. It is necessary that it be included, and it is not in any respect redundant.

9113:

Thanks, you are very welcome. Sometimes it takes someone uninvolved in the dispute to look closely at existing consensus and policies and come up with a third solution acceptable to all parties.

10733:, I would be very happy to. A bit busy at present, but will take a look over the weekend or early next week. It's the least I can do to thank you for all the awesome work you do at RSX! Cheers, 9443:

None of these units you have listed have "Infantry" in the title like the ACW ones, or in their alternative titles per the articles. Volunteer just isn't needed. Hatnotes can do the job easily.

1386: 4727: 4711: 4589: 1952: 1936: 1362: 1346: 746: 4096: 4080: 353: 153: 137: 6867:

forum.tm may be reliable. hrcak.srce.hr is a portal for Croatian scientific journals, so anything on there should be ok. Paris is pretty heavily biased, and should only be used with care.

2617:

should be enabled on the English Knowledge. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.

7674: 5862: 4595: 10806:

I don't know about the genocide issue, but a reliable source can be controversial on one issue but not on another. In this case, Ramet et al agree it was ethnic cleansing, and there is

7109: 7093: 5773: 5757: 10340:(it caught my eye on the nomination page last week as I was curious what HSwMS stood for). I thought you went above and beyond in guiding the nominator through the GA process. Cheers, 2661: 11414:

How about YOU fix it, instead of using citations to sources that fail verification. Do you even check the sources you are using? You have repeatedly done it, and that is problematic.

10881: 10865: 10609: 9235: 9219: 6770: 4719: 1944: 1763: 1354: 1066: 785: 8586: 8570: 4583: 4088: 145: 5595: 5072: 4397: 11284: 3175:

or another relevant dramaboard for the community to deal with them. I rarely use my admin tools for anything controversial regarding Yugoslavia in WWII because I might be seen as

1496: 10461:

No worries, glad it was of help. He's written a series on VC recipients as well, I don't have those but I believe them to be similar in providing short bios of each recipient -

8937: 7101: 5765: 2657: 2270: 1370: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 952: 942: 938: 934: 930: 10873: 9227: 3570:

I think this photo is from some italian book but unfortunately I don't know what book it is. This is a photo I have, it's a little better than the one on that italian site. →

161: 8578: 8038: 10083: 4498: 3834:

To stay on topic I moved this discussion to another talk section....again.... I will get back to you about Parson's as I am having a hard time looking for that page online.

1829: 1111: 10060: 9392:. Clearly military unit titles need to provide an indication of their size, so regiment is needed and the standard military unit title format across WP is <ordinal: --> 2796: 5100: 3477: 10889: 10580:

I've seen Confederate units with "Volunteer" in the title too, so it does nothing to differentiate the Union and Confederate units, and they were all volunteers anyway.

10194: 8907: 6551: 6478: 6420: 5643: 5209: 2888: 2676: 1391: 595: 10132: 9016: 8632:

You are right. Reading closer I see the first mass murder occurred April 28th about a month or two before the Nazis began their mass murders of Jews. Sorry about that.

6391: 5057: 5045: 2989:

Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

2959:

If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

10279:

Thank you for all your help with my first Good Article, and for your suggestion to nominate it for A Class. Thank you for your encouragement. It means a huge amount.

8032: 786: 11362:

I see. Well, we can agree to disagree on notability, I suppose; though it's worth mentioning that I'm some distance from the inclusionist end of the spectrum myself.

5012: 5004: 2500: 2496: 1835: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1634: 10240: 10079: 6760:, membership is entirely voluntary, you can get involved in as much or little of our collective activities as you like. We run backlog drives (one just finished), a 6597: 6514: 5880: 5701: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4269: 2934: 1449: 897: 881: 877: 486: 271: 6777:

page. If you have any more questions at any stage, feel free to contact me here. Yes, this is really how people converse on Knowledge! Enjoy your editing. Regards,

5008: 4273: 11285: 10566:

I don't really like the word "Volunteer" either. I will stick to Illinois and Texas units, though I'm not quite done with some Missouri Union artillery batteries.

7867: 6286: 6282: 6278: 4942: 4615: 2952:. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers. 2632: 1872: 1706: 1042: 544: 10549: 9934: 9930: 9926: 9389: 4293: 8911: 8903: 6320: 4623: 4413:

When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

3387:

I’m not interested in such internet drama. I stated an observation. And it seems more accurate now. My main objective is discussion of the sources I showed you.

2342:

I have worked on the article, but so far have only got to the point where he became leader of the CPY. I haven't gone beyond that as yet, or looked at the lead.

1070: 11173: 9867: 10087: 8381: 5628:

contest entries as you go and looking at ACRs to see if they are ready for promotion or nominators/reviewers need a prompt. They are our main jobs these days.

5215: 5137: 4346: 11444: 11423: 11321: 11301: 8222:

Thanks, mate! I knew that there had to be a way past the US copyright issues, though I obviously didn't dig deep enough into the Australian copyright tags.--

8039: 6433: 4845: 4772: 4758: 3784:

on Worldcat or Google Books, so unless you can provide a full citation for one or the other (and a page for the former), I don't see how the hull symbol for

737: 10092:

all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles

6503: 5663: 4221: 1602: 1411: 809: 506: 11216: 9852: 9122: 8967: 4215: 4194: 4128: 3444: 1721: 480: 11234: 10214: 10018: 9991: 8231: 8217: 6571: 4673: 4030: 4000: 3943: 3917: 3079:

quality assessment, people who can answer questions, people who have areas they help with, people who know how to write templates (unlike me) etc etc etc.

2908: 2432: 589: 11278: 10920: 10456: 10068: 9181: 9143: 8173: 8132: 8118: 7930: 6737: 6719: 6545: 6211: 6188: 6173: 5637: 5613: 5460: 5141: 4881:

I've reverted, but if they persist with the edit warring over the wording and refuse to discuss on the talk page, semi protection may be needed. Cheers,

4792: 4550: 4535: 4520: 4015: 3871:

for facts, no matter how unfavorable or uncomfortable they make one's self. If you want some of the truth heard, you have to have all of the truth heard.

3843: 3829: 3797: 3266: 3248: 3233: 3218: 3203: 3188: 2978: 2817: 1988: 1968: 1890: 1467: 1194: 851: 803: 455: 441: 423: 11373: 11357: 10756: 10742: 10496: 10306: 9831:

Yeah I don’t see much luck with that. Seems every edit leads to pandemonium on Balkan articles. It’s getting to my final nerves honestly at this point.

6890: 4652: 4171: 4153: 3982: 3156: 3031: 2844: 2351: 1674: 10258: 10043: 9060: 8067: 7792: 7578: 7509: 7495: 7043: 7029: 7015: 6987: 6158: 6061: 6046: 6032: 6010: 5978: 5950: 5910: 5719: 5342: 5328: 5305: 5291: 5277: 3771: 3757: 3691: 3672: 3565: 2644: 713: 562: 11257: 10589: 10575: 10561: 9826: 9807: 9452: 9404: 9314: 9300: 9269: 8434: 7908: 6238: 6037:

There isn't a reliable source for the Italian, and a Commander section just repeats what is already in the article. I just don't see the need for it.

5969:

That is not my problem. There are plenty of images on Commons with dodgy licences like that one. You just can't use them in articles, especially FAs.

4964: 4932: 4918: 4890: 2330: 847: 11399: 11381: 11195: 11102: 10655: 10529: 9472: 9376: 9283: 9158: 8360: 8338: 8290: 8091: 7482: 6786: 6661: 4831: 3059:

hundreds of members signed up, means that we need some means to call attention to whomever is actually active and actually available to help others.

2917:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 46 reviews between October and December 2019.

2105: 1270: 1239: 1180: 1027: 775: 731: 395:

Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at first mention. Ie "The first two squadrons (I and II) led the way ... " etc.

10823: 10801: 10786: 10717: 10470: 10438: 9900: 9769: 9721: 9706: 9691: 9677: 9655: 9614: 9599: 9581: 9546: 9488: 8867: 8857: 8772: 8757: 8730: 8701: 8641: 8627: 8532: 8491: 8477: 8463: 8448: 8375: 8323: 8188: 8158: 7721: 7624: 7599: 7550: 7535: 7454: 7440: 7184: 7169: 7155: 7140: 6876: 6862: 6840: 6826: 6811: 6232: 5818: 5804: 5024: 4994: 2372: 677: 659: 636: 380: 11072: 11058: 11044: 11030: 11016: 10998: 10981: 10941: 9438: 9342: 9328: 9037: 8949: 8801: 7699: 7403: 7365: 7330: 7291: 7259: 7236: 7217: 6973: 6944: 6912: 5223: 5153: 5145: 4954: 4876: 3538: 3524: 3130: 3108: 3069:

or something, of users who are actually active, available, ready and willing to help others on this. adding myself was just the tip of the iceberg.

3053: 2880: 2866: 2357: 1590: 1564: 1541: 642: 610: 192: 10367: 9894: 9755: 8416: 7845: 7828:

Please slow down and look again at paragraph 1, 4th sentence, and then at paragraph 3 and the identical 3rd sentence. Not ideal for a lede, is it?

7312:

There is no shortage of books that describe Tito as a benevolent dictator, including most biographies of him such as West. Peter Lane's 1985 book

6696: 6682: 6580:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 26 reviews between January and March 2020.

5564: 5528: 5508: 5479: 5433: 5415: 5400: 5386: 5371: 3346: 3331: 3311: 3297: 702: 10109: 9840: 8993: 8073: 8009: 7991: 7445:

I agree with you but I am talking about something else. I may have not been clear in how I started this discussion. I’ll make a separate section.

6455: 5876: 5186: 5149: 5129: 4817: 4475: 2773: 2628: 2421: 1806: 1709:

was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new

1285: 1088: 859: 757: 11151: 8394: 7895: 7160:

My main concern remains a few unreliable sources like Lituchy, and the use of marginal online news sources for much of the modern day material.

5333:

The reader wants to know about the man, and can click on the link if they want to know what his rank epaulettes for his final rank looked like.

5103:, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is 4259: 10699: 10223:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 59 reviews between April and June 2020.

10003: 9788: 9104: 9051:

No worries Ed. I've protected it and will drill down into the 2019 RFC and see if I can explain it in a clearer manner and suggest a solution.

8682: 8656: 7282:

enough. So, something like that be considered bad sourcing? If not, is it OK to find the opposite claim in more books and put it here as well?

6316: 5833: 5258: 1860: 1314: 9916: 7871: 6140: 5884: 2624:

asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.

2470: 1696: 1522: 10959: 10535: 10114: 9516: 8998: 8893: 8523:

I've responded there. There are plenty of reliable sources that say Đilas was involved in "leftist errors" in Montenegro. I've linked three.

8014: 7705: 7663: 7655: 7648: 7640: 7357: 7283: 7228: 6765: 6460: 6353: 6341: 6258: 6136: 6006: 5946: 5941:

Then remove that photo from the Wikimedia Commons. At the end the two photos from the 1936 voyage remaining for Gallery or somethihg else. --

5324: 5287: 5191: 4990: 4679: 4480: 4361: 3753: 3668: 3005: 2778: 2640: 2610: 1904: 1811: 1620: 1093: 1008: 829: 6412: 6395: 5558:

article to use this updated map - if you prefer it too then cool, if not just revert my change and go back to the default NDH 1941 locator.

4334: 4330: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 1789:

will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive

10075: 9479:

because the NDH was a country, a puppet state of course, but still a country, and the Italians also occupied part of it from 1941 to 1943.

7883: 7061: 6363: 5490: 4980: 4425: 3959: 3302:

I'm not interested in hosting a free-for-all on my talk page. Take your disputes to article talk or your own talk pages, not mine. Thanks,

2595: 2448: 1684: 837: 105: 7941: 2488: 10849: 10770:

There are better sources, and although it is contested, I understand the general academic consensus is that it was ethnic cleansing; see

9203: 8885: 8607: 8554: 7077: 6527: 5741: 5725: 5133: 4695: 4664:

Believe it or not, I find sfn easier. I suppose it is what you are used to. I started off using ref tags and changed to sfn after a bit.

4241: 4064: 4048: 3813: 2452: 1920: 1330: 121: 10297:

You are very welcome! Great to see people stretching themselves and putting their work up for review! I'll take a look at the ACR soon.

9090:

This barnstar is awarded to you for your good work, careful contributions and valuable mediation in resolving the naming dispute at the

3556:. I'm afraid that a modelling website doesn't qualify as reliable. If you can find a reliable source for it, it could be added. Cheers, 2474: 2466: 1004: 962: 893: 10502: 10104: 8988: 8004: 6450: 5181: 4470: 4249: 2768: 2079:

Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free.

1801: 1638: 1473: 1083: 825: 8835: 7863: 6268: 3317: 2288: 10833: 10288: 9382: 8889: 6149:

That video link can't be used either. There is no indication it is PD, in fact British Pathe require you to buy a licence to use it.

4237: 2492: 2456: 1624: 873: 863: 10633: 8302:

Yet another of Antid's creations. "Bookicide" is an obscure and recent word first used in Croatia in 1998 in the satirical magazine

3396: 10661: 9476: 9187: 8976:

articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland

8538: 8272: 7837: 6437: 6436:

of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The

4560: 3678:

if you know what page the image is on and it says the year when the image was taken. As far as the displacement characteristics of

3515:

editors, an assessment area where editors can submit articles for assessment/re-assessment, and a simple system of awards. Cheers,

1896: 10189: 6643: 432:! I think introducing them using the relevant numeral at first mention is all that is required given the map is so clear. Cheers, 10349: 9569: 8927: 8915: 6254: 4400:. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: 833: 6978:

Photos with FoP-USonly aren't really free, but unlike Commons enwiki doesn't require images to be free in their source country.

2149: 1012: 909: 855: 2484: 2314: 1429: 326: 262: 247: 2087: 2040: 11405: 10536: 10386: 9882: 7904: 7813: 7745: 7632: 6846: 6605: 5789: 5362:

That sounds great, XrysD. I'm looking forward to seeing it, I know it will get good use across a number of articles. Cheers,

4245: 3453: 2942: 2378: 1156: 10552:

for the discussion and progress. One of the editors involved will get to the Union Missouri units soonish I'm sure. Cheers,

9646:

look out for as apposed to just going with the official names? What have you found sources to use as the most common label?

8647:

estimate and assuming the estimate was correct, as the author states. Small detail but heavy. I fixed the wording therefore.

7966: 6903:, the problem is that Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have freedom of panorama, so the building itself is still copyrighted. 10128: 9873: 9251: 9012: 8058:. I will alert them to the DS and have made a comment there. I don't feel it would be best for me to close though. Thanks, 8028: 6474: 5843: 5673: 5205: 4494: 2792: 2427: 1825: 1363:

Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos

1107: 4044:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3955:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3504:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3121:

Generally the term "admin" refers to sysops. I would just go with coordinator, that's what most WikiProjects use. Cheers,

2217: 1256: 1220: 10399: 9460: 5250: 5245: 3851: 1859:

On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the November 2019

10503: 9506:(1) Why was there was no consensus or RfC for what the new name should be? Number of editors were not in favor in fact. 8198: 7978: 6378: 5296:

No-one has bothered to remove them? How does their addition improve the reader's comprehension of the article? Thanks,

4527: 4007: 3931: 3909: 3835: 3486: 3388: 3338: 3258: 3225: 3195: 9319:

I'm not sure if I should congratulate or commiserate with you over having two TFAs in a month! I've watchlisted both.

7977:

created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see

2190: 11348:

for FAC (he passed ACR in 2013), but have since decided against it due to the lack of coverage of his personal life.

9066: 5931: 2823: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 6634:

For you many contributions to military history articles, to the Wikproject Military History and for your 100th ARC.

3736:

hull symbol. But it will be hard. For displacement I found this book with data of displacement (in metric tones). →

3682:

are concerned, I will stay with Chesneau and Lenton at this stage, as they are naval specialist historians. Cheers,

9572:

because it could still be read as implying that Serbia was a country (despite the clear evidence to the contrary).

9043: 6423:

and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

6093: 6089: 3529:

hm okay. well, I do appreciate your reply on that. thanks for your input. I will give that some thought. thanks. --

2977:

For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section:

7712:

section should be about. It should not be about the history of Croat nationalism in a more general sense. Cheers,

1979:, but make sure you advise the editor you are reporting and provide multiple diffs showing the behaviour. Cheers, 11179: 10124: 9008: 8807: 8024: 6891: 6470: 5201: 4490: 3011: 2788: 1821: 1742: 1103: 6773:, and if you would like another editor to take a look at your work and provide feedback, you can post it at our 8817: 7558: 6725: 6217: 3908:

looking to spam this talk page with such wasted energy back and forths. So I won't respond to them further.

1073:. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2. 11145: 11108: 7945: 7462: 6484: 3861: 3037: 2949: 2060: 7919: 7590:

I'll tell you what, how about you use edit summaries that explain why you are deleting information? Thanks,

5111:

a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your

2223: 10599: 10312: 10155: 9874: 7563: 6939: 5844: 5575: 5216: 5125: 4442: 3969: 3508: 3099:

label to describe the sort of things that I plan or hope to do there. I hope that sounds okay. thanks!!! --

1738: 1425: 520: 223: 11429:

respond to what I thought the two of you had come up with. I was not trying to fix the blame. Cheers.

11335:

My point about notability and tertiary sources applies to Luis Arturo González López too. Pick-outs like

10421: 8666: 8239: 7757: 5424:! Thanks so very much for your research and work on putting this together. Greatly appreciated! Regards, 5268:, icons should not be merely decorative. Use of rank icons doesn't improve comprehension of the article. 5090:

confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

3546: 1767: 516: 10646:. I am finding ACW units quite diverting from patrolling the POV-warrior-infested WWII Balkans pages... 9746:

If you two want to have a stink, take it elsewhere. I've made my position clear on both article titles.

7923: 6850: 5995:

you can see Armin Pavić, Vladimir Šaškijević and Emil Kopka. And this source already is in the article.

5377: 5232: 2257: 11437: 11314: 10264: 7934: 7318: 6792: 6610: 5570: 4898: 4841: 4768: 4446: 2636: 646: 325:

Created 148 articles and 7 templates. A prolific and helpful article reviewer. Lead coordinator of the

198: 38: 10138: 2243: 11329: 10163: 9760:

I have not interest in using another editor’s page for this sort of fight and ridiculous conclusions.

9497:

Peacemaker, I never said to go back to the old name “Holocaust in Serbia”. My issues were as follows:

9418: 9410: 7775: 7519: 5681: 5672:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for

5239: 2850: 2824: 1745:, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. ( 1420:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for

708: 515:

On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for

222:

Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as

11161: 11139: 10153:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

9091: 9044: 7994:

with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

7768: 7110:

Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

6745: 6518:, I am pleased to award you this token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. 5619: 5265: 4743: 4628:

Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as

4370: 3162: 714: 7278: 5160: 11382: 11345: 11212: 9560: 9467: 8618:

The Ustashas started killing immediately they took power in April 1941. This is well documented.

8296: 8227: 7201: 6079: 5448: 4026: 3939: 1162: 568: 5168: 2666:

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted

11419: 11407: 11395: 11353: 11341: 11297: 11274: 11253: 11230: 11191: 11169: 11098: 11068: 11040: 11012: 10977: 10937: 10916: 10819: 10782: 10738: 10713: 10651: 10585: 10557: 10525: 10492: 10452: 10434: 10363: 10302: 10254: 9890: 9863: 9803: 9751: 9702: 9673: 9665: 9610: 9577: 9484: 9448: 9400: 9372: 9338: 9310: 9265: 9177: 9139: 9118: 9056: 9033: 8853: 8845: 8797: 8753: 8697: 8623: 8612: 8528: 8487: 8459: 8430: 8356: 8319: 8286: 8213: 8169: 8154: 8128: 8114: 8087: 8063: 7788: 7717: 7695: 7669: 7595: 7574: 7531: 7505: 7478: 7436: 7399: 7326: 7255: 7213: 7165: 7136: 7125: 7039: 7011: 6969: 6908: 6872: 6836: 6807: 6782: 6733: 6715: 6678: 6667: 6657: 6541: 6523: 6228: 6207: 6184: 6169: 6154: 6057: 6042: 6028: 5974: 5906: 5800: 5715: 5633: 5609: 5504: 5456: 5429: 5396: 5367: 5338: 5301: 5273: 5156:. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014. 4914: 4886: 4861: 4827: 4754: 4669: 4648: 4546: 4531: 4516: 4211: 4190: 4149: 4124: 4011: 3996: 3978: 3913: 3839: 3825: 3793: 3767: 3762:

We can't external link to copyvios, so unless the images are PD, they can't be external links.

3687: 3561: 3520: 3392: 3342: 3307: 3262: 3244: 3229: 3214: 3199: 3184: 3152: 3126: 3049: 3027: 2968:

and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

2922: 2862: 2840: 2813: 2417: 2368: 2347: 2326: 2296: 2284: 2213: 2145: 2101: 2051: 2036: 1984: 1886: 1868: 1586: 1537: 1506: 1463: 1437: 1304: 1266: 1235: 1190: 1176: 1152: 799: 771: 763: 727: 698: 673: 632: 616: 606: 585: 558: 532: 476: 451: 437: 419: 376: 297: 226:

in recognition of your outstanding and continuing work. Thank you for the great contributions!

188: 47: 17: 7962: 11431: 11368: 11308: 11242: 10752: 10284: 10280: 10185: 9422: 9414: 9356: 8978:. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction. 8602: 8102: 8074: 5356: 4837: 4764: 4167: 1714: 577: 428:

I have to say, this is a great series of maps which lay out the battle very well. Great job,

386: 10411:

Notes his 1940 appraisal as "below average, for whom it was doubtful a niche could be found"

9912: 7891: 7879: 7526:

The latter is far stronger. The appropriate place to discuss this is on the Tito talk page.

6349: 6264: 5555: 5519: 5443: 5053: 5041: 5020: 4986: 4255: 2462: 1692: 1670: 948: 905: 843: 11336: 10373: 10236: 9987: 9922: 8923: 8899: 8047:

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:OyMosby reported by User:WEBDuB (Result: )

7912: 7859: 7833: 7569:

Sure, will keep a weather eye. Feel free to ping me to any particularly problematic pages.

7492: 7025: 6983: 6593: 6359: 6337: 6274: 5868: 5697: 5000: 4342: 4326: 4265: 4200: 3271:

Dear IP editor, please be civil enough and stop badmouthing me, it is not your first time.

2930: 2591: 2480: 2111: 1680: 1630: 1445: 1000: 958: 889: 869: 540: 9958: 9940: 9367:

I don't have enough knowledge of the sources to chime in there, unfortunately. Good luck!

8953:

that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open

8347:

for a community opinion on their reliability, pointing out in which ways they do not meet

6847:

http://www.forum.tm/vijesti/revizionisticki-pamflet-igora-vukica-o-kozarackoj-djeci-3-6039

6292: 4445:

will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The

8: 10723: 10571: 9822: 9784: 9434: 9361: 9293: 9096: 8786: 8412: 7428: 7421: 6996: 6954: 6921: 6023:. It can be used as a reference though, so I have created a citation and added the fact. 5312: 4950: 4928: 4872: 4658: 4609: 4179: 3016: 2310: 1725: 1185:

Done. The redirect from the old review page had to be deleted to make way for a new one.

687: 576:

G'day. I'm sorry, but I am not familiar with sportsperson articles. I suggest you ask at

471:

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to. Can you provide more information? Thanks,

8844:. Antid has restored the material and added a citation to a reliable source (thank you, 3709:

in 1943 had another type of camouflage). For this second photo we have one more suorce,

11208: 10764: 10629: 10424:

stating: "he always lived right on top of the world, as though every day was his last".

10228: 9154: 8587:

Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

8390: 8334: 8268: 8223: 8205: 8106: 6639: 6585: 5963: 5406: 4903: 4812: 4787: 4404: 4022: 3935: 3274: 3239:

Croats, he is referring only to Bosnian Muslims. Can you provide a quote from Parsons?

3176: 2084: 1994: 1281: 1252: 1216: 1202: 753: 402:

Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at first mention

177: 9999: 8881: 6312: 6250: 6001:

Then the other two photos from 1936 remain.They are already in the other articles. --

5164: 4976: 4233: 2553: 2517: 2444: 1616: 970: 926: 821: 11415: 11391: 11349: 11293: 11270: 11249: 11226: 11187: 11165: 11094: 11064: 11036: 11008: 10973: 10947: 10933: 10912: 10815: 10797: 10778: 10734: 10709: 10647: 10581: 10553: 10521: 10488: 10466: 10448: 10430: 10359: 10298: 10250: 10056: 9886: 9859: 9836: 9799: 9765: 9747: 9717: 9698: 9687: 9669: 9651: 9606: 9595: 9573: 9542: 9480: 9444: 9396: 9368: 9334: 9306: 9261: 9173: 9135: 9128: 9114: 9052: 9029: 8849: 8828: 8793: 8768: 8749: 8726: 8693: 8678: 8652: 8637: 8619: 8524: 8483: 8473: 8455: 8444: 8426: 8371: 8352: 8315: 8282: 8209: 8184: 8165: 8150: 8124: 8110: 8083: 8059: 7784: 7776: 7767:

What list style should I go with? There are three possible changes I came up with at

7713: 7691: 7617: 7591: 7570: 7546: 7527: 7501: 7474: 7467: 7450: 7432: 7395: 7322: 7251: 7209: 7180: 7161: 7151: 7132: 7035: 7007: 6965: 6904: 6868: 6858: 6832: 6822: 6803: 6778: 6729: 6711: 6674: 6653: 6537: 6519: 6408: 6224: 6223:

G'day, I'd be happy to if necessary, but are you expecting a support from A. Parrot?

6203: 6180: 6165: 6150: 6053: 6038: 6024: 6020: 5970: 5962:

Citations are needed for all information, and we can't use Knowledge as a source per

5902: 5829: 5814: 5796: 5711: 5629: 5605: 5500: 5452: 5425: 5392: 5363: 5334: 5297: 5269: 5112: 4910: 4882: 4823: 4750: 4665: 4644: 4542: 4512: 4207: 4186: 4145: 4120: 3992: 3974: 3927: 3821: 3789: 3763: 3683: 3557: 3516: 3483: 3450: 3303: 3240: 3210: 3180: 3148: 3122: 3045: 3023: 2918: 2858: 2836: 2809: 2413: 2364: 2343: 2322: 2280: 2209: 2141: 2097: 2032: 2021: 1980: 1882: 1864: 1759: 1582: 1533: 1490: 1459: 1433: 1262: 1231: 1186: 1172: 1148: 1117: 1031: 795: 767: 723: 694: 669: 655: 628: 602: 581: 554: 528: 472: 447: 433: 429: 415: 372: 368: 184: 8439:

You and I were called out in the article’s talk page. Just thought you should know.

5935: 5451:) for me, particularly around which zone Knin is within on the source maps. Thanks, 5311:

the icons of their general titles in addition to the icons of the Marshal's title -

4382:

wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input

2835:, I'm back on deck properly now after the break, will take a look shortly. Regards, 11364: 11054: 11026: 11007:, I've reached my Google Books limit on that book. You don't have a physical copy? 10994: 10955: 10748: 10730: 10480: 10181: 10039: 9324: 9022: 8971: 7659: 7644: 7361: 7287: 7232: 6933: 5620: 4941:

up - don't know if you got the ping when I added your name to it, but if not, it's

4504: 4163: 4141: 4134: 3534: 3104: 3001: 2876: 2832: 1762:

is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review

1560: 1518: 1421: 624: 10414:

Notes that the other two Oyster mines also detonated after the primer was removed.

9559:

I agree with the first, but accept the current title for now as it is better than

9028:

No worries, I won't do the GAN after the c/e, but it should sail through. Cheers,

6381:

request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

1746: 10926: 10545: 10345: 10232: 8055: 7829: 7584: 7489: 7196: 7021: 7003: 6979: 6961: 6761: 6692: 6589: 5992: 5693: 5689: 4643:

No worries. Enjoy your editing, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask!

3326: 3292: 2926: 2808:

Thanks Gerda. Must be one of very few TFAs on leading Nazis. Not a pleasant man.

2755: 1953:

Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

1581:

My pleasure. I thought at least an alternative view should be presented. Cheers,

1441: 569: 536: 8098: 6619: 5587: 3022:

The best place to discuss this is on the talk page of the Tito article. Cheers,

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

10567: 10358:

Thanks Zawed! Always keen to help people get started in the quality processes.

9818: 9780: 9430: 9287: 8941: 8422: 8408: 6774: 6750: 6085:

Maybe if someone wants to see the commander's list without looking in the text.

5316: 4946: 4937:

The Francesco Caracciolo FAC took a bit longer than I expected, but I just put

4924: 4868: 4637: 4112: 3140: 2306: 2301: 2155: 1897: 344: 243: 9333:

Thanks mate, it can be a bit hectic, but at least they aren't Balkans ones...

6917:

Right, so it is not PD in those countries. Or are you saying that photos with

5924: 5858: 4380:

seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with

2236: 2229: 1305:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Croatian_Orthodox_Church#Neo-fascist_POV-pushing

207: 11263: 10905: 10643: 10625: 10224: 10026: 9661: 9279: 9166: 9150: 8402: 8386: 8344: 8330: 8264: 8142: 6799: 6757: 6704: 6635: 6581: 6196: 4807: 4782: 3172: 2336: 2180: 2080: 1976: 1710: 1277: 1248: 1212: 749: 665: 465: 229: 11035:

I’ve sent you an email, just reply with scans or pics of the pages. Cheers,

6512:

For scoring 322 points in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon

4923:

Great, I can put it up as soon as the Francesco Caracciolo FAC is finished.

1261:

You need to have this discussion on the talk page of the article, not here.

11201: 11135: 11131: 10793: 10694: 10517: 10462: 10444: 10382:

That he offered his services to the RAN on 1 September 1939 and was refused

10173: 10022: 9832: 9761: 9713: 9683: 9647: 9591: 9538: 8841: 8821: 8764: 8722: 8674: 8648: 8633: 8469: 8440: 8367: 8348: 8180: 7610: 7542: 7446: 7176: 7147: 6854: 6818: 5825: 5810: 4457: 4393: 3553: 2120: 2046: 2012: 1227: 668:

that worked on that one. In any case, I'll have a look at it soon. Cheers,

651: 364: 2679:, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: 1717:

are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.

11117: 11050: 11022: 11004: 10990: 10965: 10951: 10512: 10321: 9320: 8517: 6928: 6900: 5677: 3884:

I have provided multiple sources stating Genocide against Croats as well.

3530: 3100: 2997: 2872: 2802: 1844: 1556: 1514: 8101:, but I don't dare to face an AfD. We saw Faust Part 2 in Frankfurt, so 7958: 6849:

as among other newspapers used as sources for historical information ,

4450: 3879:

that is the order the sources put it in. Genocide of Croats and Muslims.

1713:

is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally,

10670: 10341: 10038:

Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by

9252: 6688: 5930:

Armin Pavić, Vladimir Šaškijević and Emil Kopka are in the text of the

5685: 5559: 5523: 5496: 5485: 5474: 5439: 5421: 5410: 5381: 4728:

Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

3320: 3286: 2384: 2070: 1500:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

10273: 5652: 3284:, but - be it on your honour, if such a concept interests you at all. 2251: 2198: 1400: 495: 367:

and WikiProject Editor Retention! Thanks very much for nominating me,

10775:

Croatia Since Independence: War, Politics, Society, Foreign Relations

10417:

Joined the VC and GC Association in 1964 while in the UK for reunion.

9429:

tells the reader that it's a Civil War U.S. Volunteer regiment. Thx.

9275: 6851:

https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=37130

4449:

of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically

1482: 1126: 1056:

is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

524: 10608: 10550:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history#Titling of ACW regiments

2391: 2164: 3713:(Achille Rastelli) page 172. One more thing, I found this site for 2401: 1163: 10693:. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, 9588:

The Holocaust in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

7146:

problematic and concerning that it is falling through the cracks.

6764:, and reward reviewers at the end of each quarter. We also have a 5470: 4580:

Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as

3728:, I will try to find a book from which the photo is white-colored 10337: 9409:

The issue isn't "regiment," it's the removal of "Volunteer." See

9075: 7175:

claim was restored by two different editors despite being false.

3316:

Point taken. Note that IP's POV pushing/holy war has continued -

10447:! Thanks for finding this. Have added some good detail from it. 9951: 9664:

or use a descriptive title when the common name isn't clear per

8248: 6052:

Premuda. We need to do better than that with Featured Articles.

2208:

Thanks, onel5969. Hope you get a break over the holiday period.

1737:

Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via

10203: 10150:

Hello, Peacemaker67. Please check your email; you've got mail!

9712:

explaining it all out, Peacemaker. I appreciate it. Take care.

8792:

No worries, if you have any questions, feel free to post here!

7473:

Thanks. Was pretty weird not being able to go to Dawn Service.

6560: 6493: 5809:

Sorry, the Jasenovac Concentration Camp talk page and article.

3552:

As it is a Featured article, everything in the article needs a

3442: 2897: 2735: 1881:

Thanks Gog! It's been a long time between drinks for that one.

1458:

Thanks Gog, some of that has taken years to get up to scratch.

1387:

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

11130:

For your contributions that have elevated so many articles to

6440:

is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

6124: 6117: 6113: 3991:

Let have this discussion centrally on the template talk page.

3745: 3741: 3737: 3660: 3650:

PS. When we already discussing: Full battle load of destroyer

3643: 3627: 3571: 1728:

has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

10882:

Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military

10059:

of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee

9471:

For the exact same reasons, the NDH article should remain at

8123:

Thanks Gerda! Sorry to hear about your friend. Warm regards,

7911:

for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at

6964:

can opine about whether it can be used in this case? Cheers,

6411:

of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee

5861:? This photo is the Public Domain on the Wikimedia Commons - 5484:

I can take a look at the template issue instead if you like?

4414: 1999: 242:

Let's begin on a real world note. Peacemaker67 served on two

9978: 8872: 8820:

there is whole paragraph on his rejection to sign appeal. --

8263:

Thanks for providing thorough reviews for FOUR! of my GANs.

7850: 6328: 5032: 4317: 3446:

Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts

2711: 2508: 1607: 917: 762:

Sorry, French history isn't my thing. I suggest you post at

8944:

should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.

6421:

Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft)

6019:

The video isn't PD, so can't be linked in the article, per

5959:

Who is to say that is Princess Olga? We need a text source.

1863:, achieving 35 points from four articles. Congratulations, 627:

is a good model for writing up a massacre article. Cheers,

8105:

will be my memorial. He wasn't religious, so Penderecki's

7973: 6297: 2723: 2699: 787:

Knowledge:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Basil II

10946:

Hi, would you be able to help with this page...Brigadier

8468:

I guess I’m not. Perhaps it is better to just walk away.

8281:

Thanks Hog Farm, all of them very interesting reads too.

6303: 5919:

In the external link clearly shows that Princess Olga is

5128:, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 5107:

CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there

5079:

undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than

2681: 2363:

Sorry, I know nothing about that subject. Happy editing,

1371:

Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

280: 11286:

Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton McWhorter III

9963: 9565:

The Holocaust in the German-occupied territory of Serbia

7735: 7733: 5851:

And what's the problem with Princess Olga of Yugoslavia?

1494:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

1043:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

1041:

The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at

9969: 9945: 8399:

Based on the discussion and the request for opinion by

6112:

and I can always recognize her. See this three photos:

5075:, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops 2693: 601:

Quite right, sorry about that. I have reverted myself.

8351:, mention it on the talk page of the article as well. 7801: 6728:, DYK, image of a very small light in a ... night). -- 4569:

If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?

10866: