Hello, BoonDock. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Pro Patria Medal (South Africa), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. I served for 35 years in the SADF/SANDF. No longer affiliated in any way to them. BoonDock (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your talk page suggests that you were awarded this medal, if thats just LARPING on the internet carry on but you shouldn't be editing articles about medals and awards you hold. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to understand this. Are you telling me that NO medal page should be edited by any veteran who has been awarded the medal? No Military unit page should be edited by any veteran who has served in the unit? Just curious? BoonDock (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes and yes, thought that would be obvious (those are significant external relationships). If you have changes please propose them on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's not obvious at all. Simply because I am a recipient of the medal, doesn't give me a conflict of interest, what it gives me is the ability to judge whether the information is accurate because I understand the sources. I'm curious about this, and how it applies further. I'll think about it a bit and then get back to you. BoonDock (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is an external relationship between yourself and a thing (in this case a medal). The argument you make about your COI giving you the ability to judge whether the information is accurate because you understand the sources is an old one and is one the community has rejected. While those with COI might indeed better understand the topic on balance its best for the project if they restrict their edits to the talk page. Remember that the outcome of such a position would be that the most qualified person to write a biography would be the subject of that biography and the most qualified to write about a company would be the PR person of that company, but the community has actually decided the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Dormskirk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. You reverted a change claiming it is "unsourced". Does that mean that the fact that it is a summary of the extremely well resourced information in the rest of the article doesn't count? No problem, I'll reinstate but duplicate the sourcing that already exists. BoonDock (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Footwiks, firstly thanks for your polishing on Order of Military Merit (South Korea).

In the near future, I want to create below categories

• Category:Recipients of the Taegeuk Order of Military Merit
• Category:Recipients of the Eulji Order of Military Merit

or

• Category:Recipients of the Order of Taegeuk Military Merit
• Category:Recipients of the Order of Eulji Military Merit

But I'm not sure the official name.

So I sent the e-mail to the South Korean Government Office to enquire about the official name

I'm waiting for reply.

I have questions.

(1) You are an English native speaker. Which is a idiomatic English term?

• Taegeuk Order of Military Merit
• Order of Taegeuk Military Merit

(2) I found a South African recipient of the Chungmu Order of Military Merit during Korean War.

Service: Air Force / Awarded Date: 1 July 1952.

But I know only Korean name: 배뢰 A. A. 워겔, roughly pronunciation: Bærøe A. A. Wargel

If you have spare time, Can you find his own English name?

Anyway, Thanks in advance.

I'm South Korean, If you have any questions about South Korean Military or Korean War.

Please feel free to contact me.

Best Regards,

Footwiks (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Yes I have seen your extensive changes to the page. Thank you for that.

I think that the idiomatic term would be "Order of Military Merit - Taegeuk", but I'm flexible.

I will see what I can find, but the only SA recipient I know of is the one already in the list. BoonDock (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Can you check out this article: Student Volunteer Forces?

Which is a idiomatic English title?

Student Volunteer Troop
or
Student Volunteer Troops
or
Student Volunteer Force
or
Student Volunteer Forces

Thanks. Footwiks (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I have done a bunch of fixes on that article. You might want to check and see if you are happy with them. Some are Grammar, some rewording. I've added some stuff in (like a quote from one of the sources, and converted the casualty count to a table. I have also gone through and (up to a point) checked each reference, making sure the title was correct (mostly thee original Korean) and then providing the translated title in the "trans-title" parameter. The translations are from ChatGPT which is normally pretty good, but even then I've modified some of them to make more sense in English. For example, most of the translations use "6.25" which is sort of meaningless, so I have changed it to "25 June" where appropriate. Please take a look through and see if I have made any changes which don't make sense. BoonDock (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to hear your opinion about title of article, But I really thanks for your extensive polishig

'Korean War', We call it "6.25 전쟁" or "한국 전쟁" in Korean. I prefer "한국 전쟁"

What is the difference between Force and Forces.

I can't understand subtle distinction.

Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to hear your opinion about title of article, But I really thanks for your extensive polishig

Absolute pleasure. Glad to help.

'Korean War', We call it "6.25 전쟁" or "한국 전쟁" in Korean. I prefer "한국 전쟁"

I cannot tell the difference to be honest. Just that in some of the articles "6.25" was translated as the "25th June". That could be incorrect, and it could have meant just "Korean War". Please check the references, there you will find the original title in Korean in the title= field and the English translation in the trans-title= field. The translations might be incorrect and need to be fixed.

What is the difference between Force and Forces. I can't understand subtle distinction.

One is singular, the other plural. Force is one force. Forces is more than one Force. If you say "He fought with the Japanese Force." It means that there was one Japanese Force and he fought with it. If you say "He fought with the Japanese Forces" that is many. He could have been in any one of many forces that Japan had. Does that make sense?

BoonDock (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, I can't understand subtle distinction in the title of Wikipedia article.

For example, current article title - Special forces.

Is Article title - Special force a bit unusual?

Footwiks (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to your original question: Student Volunteer Force BoonDock (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many organization of Student Volunteer Force.

For example, Student Volunteer Force of Koreans In Seoul, Student Volunteer Force of Koreans In Incheon, Student Volunteer Force of Koreans In Japan and so on.

Therefore, I selected Student Volunteer Forces not Student Volunteer Force in the title.

Is there no need to. ? Footwiks (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forces is correct. BoonDock (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I moved the title.Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at Reference 17 ( "국민군대의 전통을 만든 6.25 학도의용군"). I don't think the translation of the title is correct. BoonDock (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6.25 means 6.25 War = Korean War.

In the context, 국민군대 means Army or Forces or Troops which nation / citizen or ordinary people / general public take part in. (I can't choose perfect English term about 국민군대.)

I think below translation is nearest to the original meaning.

Student Volunteer Forces in the Korean War which created the tradition of the Army which ordinary people take part in. Footwiks (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I misunderstood your reply. Force is correct so I moved the title - Student Volunteer Force.

But I guess I made a mistake so moved the title again - Student Volunteer Forces

Finally, Let's check out the title of article, Student Volunteer Force or Student Volunteer Forces?

Which is a idiomatic English title?Footwiks (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think just stop changing it and leave it alone for a while. Make sure that there is a redirect from the one to the other then it doesn't really matter. BoonDock (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop undoing AnomieBOT's edit to Module:MilAward/data. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 14:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. Sorry. Hadn't noticed the edit which I is why I was inadvertently overwriting it each time. Fixed now. BoonDock (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have spare time, Can you participate in below discussion?
Spartan_3000 Discussion

Some user don't believe South Korean reliable sources and it has raised a dispute.

Anyway, Thanks Footwiks (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Medal Display has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:BattleHonour/ZAR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, for info, I just documented the need to update that page for certain CFDs, at WP:CFDAI. Hope that will not draw any unwanted attention. – Fayenatic London 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I see. Thank you. I hope so too ;-) BoonDock (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello BoonDock,

I have been investigating the operation of #switch and noticed that, given a list of keys (that may be duplicated) only the first one is picked. Given that this is how #switch works, it is pointless (and possibly confusing) having any duplicate key.

I have written a process that identifies duplicate keys in #switch statements

subpage /ZAR happens to have quite a few duplicates

CGH , DWD , CC , AFC , AFC* , AFC** , AFC1 , AFC2 , AFM , CB , CBh , CBE , CBEh , CC , CH , CM , DFC , DFC* , DFC** , DSC , DSC* , DSC** , DSC1 , DSC2 , DSM , DSO , DSO* , DSO** , DSO*** , DSO1 , DSO2 , DSO3 , ED , FRCOG , KBE , KC , MC , MC* , MC** , MC1 , MC2 , MVO , MVOh , OBE , OM , PC , RD , VD , CD , C.D. , GCStJ , KStJ , DStJ , CStJ , ChStJ , OStJ , SBStJ , SSStJ , EsqStJ , JP , MP , FRMS , FRS , CPM , ComIH , Com.I.H. , CvIH , Cv.I.H. , DmIH , Dm.I.H. , GCIH , G.C.I.H. , GColIH , G.Col.I.H. , GOIH , G.O.I.H. , MedOIH , Med.O.I.H. , MedPIH , Med.P.I.H. , OIH , O.I.H. , MSM

Note that 'MP' has been identified as a duplicate

from the Template the two cases are

| MP = [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|MP]]

and further down the page

| MP = [[Parliament of South Africa|MP]]

As this is a South African subpage, I would suspect that for ((Post-nominals|country=ZAR|MP)) the result should be 'Parliament of South Africa'; however the result is 'Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)' (on hover over MP). Which kinda proves my point.

I may have been overzealous with the key removal. (Can you tell me which keys I should not have removed?)

By the way /GBR and /AUS also have duplicates Desb42 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, if you leave it alone, I'll go through and manually check for duplicates.

The GBR stuff in ZAR is there for a specific reason. I'll disambiguate it.

Thanks for your efforts. BoonDock (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list you've given here is more about different versions than it is about duplicates. BoonDock (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Badge Display/ZAR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module:SAHRA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Perhaps I misunderstand why this was removed [1] but the explanation given (NPOV) would appear to be unfounded given the coverage at Selous Scouts. Rather than addressing a POV issue you seem to have promoted a white supremacist POV, surely that is not what you intended to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provide inline references. Criminal implies that he has been convicted of a crime. BoonDock (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it doesn't... The statement you edited is "Although the Selous Scouts achieved many of their military objectives, their unorthodox and often criminal methods created tensions within the military hierarchy." Surely you know that the Selous Scouts are famous for committing war crimes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Famous? If they are "famous for committing war crimes" then you will have no problem substantiating that with reliable references, which is what Wikipedia expects. Until then, it's simply your opinion aka not a neutral point of view. BoonDock (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selous Scouts#Atrocities and illegal activities appears to have significant substantiation with reliable references, not really understanding the pushback here. Nobody besides racists and apologists seems to dispute this. IMO this is as silly as someone questioning whether the other SS was famous for committing war crimes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]