My Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Hi... Could you please so kind to participate in request for comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit. Thanks.(Ckfasdf (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Article: Muhammad III of Granada – Is this "GA" or "B" class? Adamdaley (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adam, you changed it from GA to B. GA is for all projects. I've fixed it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Peacemaker.

I hope that things are going well with you. You may recall reviewing Inter-Allied Women's Conference at ACR. With a bit of encouragement from me, its author has put it up for FAC. They are a very nervous first-time FACer. If you had the time and the inclination, a run through by you would help to settle nerves. The nominator is more than happy to discuss faults, improvements and missing bits of MoS, but has a dread of things becoming confrontational. Not that that would ever happen on Wikipedia. I would do it myself, but I have put so much work into it, and acted as the FAC-mentor, and so feel that I have disqualified myself as a reviewer. Obviously, feel under no obligation.

Separately, is there anything which I could and/or should be doing as a MilHist coordinator which I'm not?

Thirdly, would you me like me to comment on the "comprehensiveness" or otherwise of Yugoslav submarine Hrabri at its FAC?

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First one, will do, I remember when FAC was daunting. Second one, if you could check the ACR list to see if any are ready for listing for closure or need a prompt to a reviewer, that would be great, and close any that are listed that you haven't reviewed (you, I and some others rarely can, given our prolific reviewing). Last one, I'd appreciate it, whatever your opinion is, it would be good to have a consensus either way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks.

Gone through them. I wasn't sure whether to nudge Maury to respond to the source and image reviews of 3 October for ASV Mark III radar; I decided not to, yet. I did two image reviews and two source reviews. Sadly I missed that you had already done an image review for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov and picked up and published a couple of (possible) issues before realising. I am happy to have your prior review override mine, or to be told that I am incorrect re the issues I identified. None I could see ready for promotion, and, as you suspected, the one ready for the bot I have reviewed.

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look at the FAC today I expect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Insurgency in Kosovo (1995–98)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could there be a trmporary vandalism block put on the featured article Douglas Albert Munro? Over the last 24 hours there has been an unprecedented number of vandalism edits on this article. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) It is today's TFA. Cuprum17, PM67 is based Down Under; by the time he notices this things should be slackening off. I suggest contacting another admin. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

My first support on my first featured article nomination, thank you. I truly do appreciate how thorough you are and how enjoyable you make improving an article. It really does take a village to make articles be the best that they can be, as we all incorporate our own proclivities in the process. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pleasure, SusunW! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Peacemaker. I know that I seem to be taking up a lot of your time lately, but I wonder if I could beg some advice? When Battle of Cape Ecnomus was at ACR I removed its map because it wasn't accurate. One of your parting comments was " I recommend a new map be obtained before this goes to FAC, as that would greatly aid understanding" Thanks to User:Amitchell125's hard work one has how been generated and inserted. It is, in my entirely biased opinion, the best map ever generated to illustrate this battle. Which is not to say that Andrew may not be persuaded to tweak any issues you can see with it. The advice I would like is as to which of the following I should do - regarding the map - before nominating the article for FAC.

1. Nothing.
2. 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.
3. 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' 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.
4. Match each squadron parenthetically to the labelling used in the maps at first mention in each paragraph.
5. Something else.

I am inclined towards 2, with 4 a close second. but would value your opinion on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your outstanding and continuing work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Lets begin on a real world note. Peacemaker67 served on two United Nations-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 Military History Project 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 recognise.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((User:UBX/EoTWBox))

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]