This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just saw this mentioned, but I haven't used it myself: User talk:GregU/dashes.js

Thanks Sturm, nice one. Works a treat. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker67. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 04:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

I thought to post at your talk page instead of the recently infobox-contested talk page to bring up an idea (which you might have as well have already tried - I simply did not read through the massive talk over there). How about using ((Infobox settlement)) instead? Its documentation says it's suitable for anything below country-level (in fact articles such as Požega-Slavonia County use that too), so I thought to present you with that possible solution without attracting further responses right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm going to start working on an expanded article in user space and will use it there to see what issues might arise. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to infrom you that I have decided to promote your GA nomination of the Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja article. --Wüstenfuchs 12:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, considering the disruption that went on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class medal for your work on the Pavle Đurišić, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) and Dobroslav Jevđević articles, which were promoted to A-Class between July and December of this year. Kirill [talk] 01:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all the coordinators, particularly those that helped me with reviews and suggestions, as well as challenging my thinking on 13th SS Division. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! I was very surprised to be in such company. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work you've been doing with the MilHist assessments. Just a heads up (although I'm not arguing with the C you gave Serangan Fajar... that's a lot more generous than I was): film, TV episode, and novel plot summaries do not need to be referenced with footnotes, as it is assumed that they are referenced to the work itself. You can check with pretty much any FA on a novel or film, including Ruma Maida, ?, Manhunter, and Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet (off the top of my head). Lost films like Terang Boelan need references because verifiability is impossible otherwise. Just so you know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'll keep it in mind. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

		2012 "Military history newcomer of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for I award you this Golden Wiki in recognition of placing first in the 2012 Military history newcomer of the year.   AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, quite a humbling experience I must say, looking at the work of the other nominees. My thanks to the coordinators and every editor that contributes to the project! Straight to the (virtual) pool room...[1] Regards to all, and merry new year! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Peacemaker! Well-deserved, in my opinion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed! I think the award is a great innovation for the project which will encourage new MILHIST editors. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated congrats, and if patriotism be the last refuge of a scoundrel, then a scoundrel I am as I'd be lying if I said I wasn't pleased to see this inaugural award and MHOTY being taken out by fellow Australians... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fellow scoundrel! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Belgian Army#Requested move - would you kindly consider providing some input at this RM? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Happy New Year yourself! Bloody heatwave here at the moment... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Vrbanja bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VAB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you check if your sources mention this subject?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not a thing I'm afraid. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, your trouble is that I moved the pages to have a hyphen in them, per WP:NC-SHIPS. Moving the review pages would solve the issue. Sorry for the confusion :/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

nemo problemo. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

did that, doesn't appear to have fixed it though. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think old peer reviews show up in the template... they don't at Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36) at least. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kirill recently did something to the template re: peer reviews to de-activate the tag problem they were causing. I don't think they are the problem now, but I know that some fields screw it up if they are out of the order given in the template. eg A-class= if it is not in the right spot. I might have to call on Kirill again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jolly good! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saw that you happen to do some work on the Contest page, and I thought I'd ask a quick question. Are the scores cumulative, or is each score a total score? What I mean is this: if I have an article that is B-Class on Jan 1, and in January, I obtained A-Class and GA-Class, should I score myself 15 or 20 points? The plus signs made me assume it's cumulative. Thanks for the clarification! Cdtew (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

hi, it's the highest score for the improvement made, not cumulative. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, adjusted accordingly. Cdtew (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of massacres in the Independent State of Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ozren (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The Trenck's Pandurs GAN was failed in August 2012. I renominated The Trenck's Pandurs at the GAN in October after addressing whatever comments were raised in the initial review, so the nomination was closed after failing as it should have been, and the current nomination should stand. Thanks for taking interest though!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, no worries. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a 3 month baby with a cold. Do you have enough cope to refer the situation on this page to an admin? See also my talk page for further elucidation of the motives of the anonymous editors. Frankly, I don't care very much what projects are listed on the talk page, but it is the principle of the thing.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Hello there. I hope you're having fun.
Do you think RogueSchoolar is somebody that we've met before? bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could be. That was my first thought... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I must say that you behave like bad user:

1.Your revert of my redirects to article Puppet State of Serbia are not well justified. You made your proposal for afd, but article is not deleted now and you should not change redirects to article that is not deleted.

2.I have no clue why you also reverting my redirects to article Axis occupation of Serbia. Redirects like "Nazi-occupied Serbia" or "Serbia in the World War II" should better point to article "Axis occupation of Serbia" than to "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia".

3.If article Puppet State of Serbia is now not deleted you should not remove links to that article from other articles.

4.Most articles in other Wikipedias speak about Puppet State of Serbia instead about Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Why you add wrong Wiki links to that article? I must also say that I will revert back your changes because they are bad. RogueSchoolar (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you are aware, I have reported your behaviour at WP:ANI. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

[2] is a probable sock. He followed your edits to an article of very limited attention and added his "Axis occupation of Serbia" POV.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you reverting legitimate edits only because they are made by sock? You should not do that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to? Every edit by a sock is a serious breach of community trust. I am sure that as a good Wikipedian you would agree that the disruption caused by what is currently something like 10 socks of the same sockmaster is an incredibly serious breach of that trust. As DeltaQuad quite rightly stated earlier, I'm perfectly within my rights to revert every edit those socks made (because the socking itself made them all illegitimate), and you are perfectly within your rights to revert me. I won't stop you, you (or another legitimate editor) just needs to take responsibility for each illegitimate edit to make it legitimate. IMHO, sockmasters edits cannot be allowed to remain on WP, because their socking is thereby legitimised. That is especially important given all the effort that must be put into hunting them down. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a first look at the article. I think it could make use of info maybe published only in German, at least for my personal taste at GA level. I would be willing to help support you over time, but as it stands now, I would probably not promote it. I hope this is okay for you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day MB. I'm not exactly happy about that. The article contains pretty much everything one can find online in English, plus some material from works in German such as von Horstenau (and now Thomas, thanks) as well as material not available online from Lepre and Kumm. If this was ACR I would accept your assessment, but your personal taste seems a little refined for GAN, given that criteria 3 expectation is broad coverage but doesn't require the article to be comprehensive. I would be very chuffed to have your support to progress it to ACR, but I believe it already meets criteria 3. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for a second opinion. I believe this is the best way to address my personal conflict here, now that I know that there is more to look for. I hope this okay for you? I will see what else I can mine out of my German sources. I still haven't looked into Krätschmer yet. He has a large section on Phleps in this book. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Krätschmer, Ernst-Günther (1999). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS (in German). Coburg, Germany: Nation Europa Verlag GmbH. ISBN 3-920677-43-9.

Fair enough. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I guess the only remaining issue is the File:Phleps.jpg copy right question. Mariaflores1955 (talk · contribs) had uploaded a number of Hoffmann images under the US public domain rational. Diannaa (talk · contribs) questioned this and addressed the issue here. The situation eventually led to an indefinite block of Mariaflores1955. Maybe you should follow up with Diannaa to make sure the image is fair to use. Ping me when this is handled, I will then promote. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serbian State Guard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Partisan and Serbian Volunteer Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've just given you rollback and reviewer permissions. I'm sure I don't need to template you (though you should read WP:RBK and WP:RVW), so I'll just say be careful and, if in doubt, do things the old-fashioned way. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Harry, I'll be careful and use them sparingly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not feel this article currently meets GA standards. As a result I will have to fail the article. Once these issues have been fixed, please feel free to renominate it for a reviewer to take another look. If you require clarification on any of the points I have raised here please ask as I am happy to help. Good luck! ★★RetroLord★★ 09:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed you have dealt with the mentioned person recently...in any case I have noticed another user User:Nado158 is doing exactly the same thing with the exactly the same argumentation to delete a certain section of the Zemun article which I tried to revert back as it was simply deleted without a proper explanation by Oldhouse2012. He contests (Nado158) that no references are given (just like Oldhouse2012) despite the fact I have updated the reference which I find is supposedly the reason for the deletion. I have made my doubts about this use being another sockpuppet of Oldhouse2012 to User:Joy a few days ago. Can you please look into it? Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a matter over at Commons which may interest you [3]. Your participation would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The goons are likely just PANONIAN.. Nobody cares about these sort of things but him. -- Director (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The thought had crossed my mind. It is very Vojvodina-focussed. I'm just putting material together as I go, but he'll be easier to deal with here than at Commons. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to assist in posting a checkuser request for possible PANONIAN socks? -- Director (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't get a chance for a few days as I am travelling and only have intermittent mobile access, but I am collecting data on all the socking that has been going on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is gratifying that Wikipedia takes very seriously high standards, especially concerning military biography. In order to establish Gerald Evan Williams as a deserving entry, I have added an outline of World War II accomplishments. Unfortunately, much of the documentation is currently stored at the airport, which is the location of the Presque Isle Air Museum. Williams is one of about three featured heroes from the war. The administrative office is probably closed until Tuesday.

Can you suggest how to document his medals? Some of the information came from a relative.

One of the issues, is that we shared an essay written by my husband for the Museum, which was promptly posted verbatim on Find a Grave. Now he will have to rewrite his own words, to avoid "plagiarism."

There are two photographs of Gerald Evan Williams. One was contributed to the local Museum by a niece Gerald Williams. Could that be posted without further permissions? There is also an excellent one in the West Point Annual for 1931, but after uploading it to the Commons, I had second thoughts about whether I can use an image – though from a federal source – was obtained from the Internet. For this reason I have not placed that on the article, and am still waiting to hear back from Wikipedia about the issue.

Yours for standards of excellence, Maineshepp (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day, nothing against the good Colonel. I suggest you have a look at WP:SOLDIER for the guidelines on notability of military biographical subjects. Unfortunately I am travelling at present and will not get a chance to look at your queries. You may wish to move this to user space in the short-term, as other editors may tag it for deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I will have to insist that you stop with insane revert game. You may revert ONLY if IP is confirmed by checkuser, but if not, you must stop with blind reverts, and ask for check. You are bit over the top now. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? After all the times you revert a supposed "sock" with no SPI? It's unfortunate that you want rules to apply to other editors but not to you, WhiteWriter. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WW, you must be kidding? When the IP appears on my talk page or someone else's, and uses the identical taunts about getting a new IP in a couple of hours or days? You go right ahead and insist all you like. If you believe I have overstepped the mark you go right ahead and report me. Seems that what is good enough for you is not good enough for anyone else. If we weren't dealing with socks so much this type of problem would just go away, wouldn't it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Dobroslav Jevđević know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 9, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 9, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Dobroslav Jevđević (1895–1962) was a Bosnian Serb politician and self-appointed Chetnik commander in the Herzegovina region of Yugoslavia during the Second World War. He was a member of the inter–war Chetnik Association and the Organisation of Yugoslav Nationalists party in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a Yugoslav National Party member of the National Assembly, and a leader of the opposition during King Alexander's dictatorship. Following the invasion of Yugoslavia by the Axis in April 1941, he became a Chetnik leader in Herzegovina and joined the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, although he often operated independently from Mihailović. Jevđević collaborated with the Italians and later the Germans in actions against the Yugoslav Partisans. During a joint Italian-Chetnik Operation Alfa, Jevđević's Chetniks, along with other Chetnik forces, were responsible for killing between 500 and 1,700 Bosnian Muslim and Catholic civilians in the Prozor region in October 1942. His force also participated in one of the largest Axis anti-Partisan operations of the war, Case White in the winter of 1943. In the spring of 1945, he fled to Italy where he resided until his death. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is brilliant! I will consult with my conominator. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Regards--Nado158 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jevđević with Italians.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume this is Oldhouse2012? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

yup! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

As the CfDed categories related to ethnic groups in Vojvodina seems to will be concluded as a delete, I started to update the Demographics sections of the articles given in the List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina, as suggested in the CfD. Since it's very likely that our old friend will do his utmost to prevent the changes, I would like to ask you to pay special attention on these. I can understand that you may tired of this, but so far you did a great job in this area and you are the one I can really rely on. Thank you! Thehoboclown (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day. That's fine, I'm watching a lot of Vojvodina pages these days so I'll keep an eye out. Just make sure you steer a neutral path, as you can see these are troubled waters and it is easy to get into strife. I'd suggest that using a "see also" template alone at the top of the ethnic group section is a little strange and potentially inflammatory, especially where the Hungarian population might only be 5%. I suggest you leave it where it was, in the "see also" section at the end of all articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks for you attention and comment! Since you are a more experienced user than me, especially in dealing uneasy situations, I think it's an advice that has to be followed. If you spot other things that might trigger some unwanted action, just do what you have to. (Though, I think I don't have to say this.) Thanks again, Thehoboclown (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker67. Watch this [4][5]. Looks like a new sockpuppet. Best regards! --IvanOS 21:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

it's him all right. NO doubt about it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker, will you be taking this to A-class after GA? I want to review a few GANs, and I prefer the ones where I know someone will be checking my work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day Dan. That's the plan. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI — I've undeleted the talk page (what's the point of making the article visible but keeping the talk deleted?), so you can now go back and look at it if you want. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll just make sure of the details and correct my comment as necessary. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

Hi Peacemaker, I have replied you on my talk page and in the article talk page, why the IDP camps do not qualify to be included in the list of Concerntration camps and Internment camps. The sources u call reliable are not really neutral on this matter, most of them are newspaper articles, and none of them prove that these camps were concerntration camps or internment camps, they just have sensational headings. For the IDP camps to be included in such a list based on such thin sources is mildly said, quite unreasonable. Please answer in the talk page as soon as u can, bcos this discussion was started almost a year ago (ref my edits and my talk page), and I got too tired and exhausted with this whole thing that I just gave up, then. But it is not right to have these IDP camps listed in that list without proper documentation, and also the first criteria to be included in the list is not there in the case of the IDP camps, all of which are now shut down and the people resettled. Regards SriSuren (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peacmaker, would you be interested in forming a "special project to reach specific article improvement goals" for the Yugoslav Front as part of Wikiproject: Yugoslavia? The Military History Wikiproject initiated four of these types of projects (see the "how is our project organized" box at [6]) and I believe it would be very productive if we did something similar. My WWII Yugoslavia overview page was inspired by those projects and it has a lot of the core essentials which we could move and expand on. What are your thoughts? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely interested. What's the story with the Operation name? My current less ambitious goal is to get the Seven Enemy Offensives accepted as a good topic, 2.5/7 already at GA. But a wider special project aimed at the Yugoslav Front would be great and would have my support and active involvement. To me the key articles would also need to include Invasion of Yugoslavia, Partition of Yugoslavia, and Yugoslav Front as a set (possibly as a good topic). The major battles, combatants and key people might form the next tier, such as the articles that form the Seven Enemy Offensives (and a few others like Kozara Offensive), also Chetniks, Yugoslav Partisans, the various NDH forces articles, Ante Pavelic, Draza Mihailovic, Josip Broz Tito and the major Axis formations (including 7th and 13th SS) and their key leaders. While we are on the topic, I'd also like to narrow the focus of the Chetniks article to Chetniks during World War II. If we are going to do a special project, I would prefer to do it through MILHIST or as a collaboration between MILHIST and WP Yugoslavia though. MILHIST already has an incubator for new special projects, and I think it would draw a fair bit of support, if not from contributors, then from reviewers. Good idea, I'm keen to work out a possible structure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I just thought "Benevolent Quake" was an interesting way of putting forth that a mass effort to improve a great many articles for the better would take place. What do you think of the name, have any suggestions? I agree with your scope and its additions. Those bios, formations, and operations should definitely be covered. The invasion and the SEOs should definitely be the primary focus for the project to begin with as then it'll be easier to build the behemoth Yugoslav Front article with summarized bits. I think making it a dual project between WP:YU and WP:MILHIST would be the best way to go. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What about "Operation 25" (arguably a bit cryptic), "Operation Yugoslav Front" (boring I know, but easily identifiable), "Operation Vihor" (to borrow from DM) or "Operation Bora"? Any of those grab you? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Operation Bora sounds good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My preference too. Having been out in it, I have a great respect for it. It does tend to blow the cobwebs out... I agree about reverse engineering the YugoFront article. Why don't we start with the coup article, then the invasion? Do we need to go further back? BTW, very cool to have a main page featured article between us! Must be an omen... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the coup would be a good starting point. It appears that the Spanish wiki did a good job on the article using reliable English sources. Best to build the article with their progress and then expand on it with the other sources. The TFA is good news, we should see about getting an image included in the summary. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, so we've started on the coup article. I think we get the coup and invasion to GA (maybe as a Good topic?) then we've got some runs on the board and can approach some other sensible people that might be interested in joining in. We could start with some of the Balkans military history task force and some WP Yugoslavia members. When we are working on an article as part of Operation Bora I think we should start a thread on the article talk page explaining what we are doing. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I plan on moving the overview page that I've been maintaining to as a WP:YUGO subpage (WikiProject Yugoslavia/Operation Bora). I don't want to hog it to myself and it looks like it's a good place to get the ball rolling in light of the suggestions at WP:MH's coord talkpage. Sound good? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Works for me! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vojislav Lukačević, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jablanica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I only added that per number of articles that have that term in its content. So, red links about it will redirect to the next relevant thing. Also, obviously, some people will search for it, as you may see from view-counter. Also, you should not expect that that term will stay red link forever. That is actually quite unlikely... Then, if you question it nevertheless, RfD is always here, and also, good old talk page discussion. Be well. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

sorry, if articles have that exact term in them that is why there are hits. That exact term is POV and should be a more NPOV one. Look forward to the discussion at RfD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, anyway, how i can delete it? I am not admin. Yet. Buuahahahaha! :) :) :) Ok, nominate it, i dont have problem with that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

-)) No you aren't. But you can ask for a speedy delete of an redirect you created. But never mind, I will do it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know who is that IP? I cannot get the main account... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The two images of him and his dog and him in his early Chetnik days will likely be deleted. It's incredibly difficult finding the original publication source given the nature of an image and since the search often ends at a random forum or auction site with no useful accompanying information whatsoever. His portrait image could be put under a NFC tag given the poor quality of the PD WWII image. The Jevdjevic image appears to be published in 1992. Of course it was probably published much earlier than that. This could also be put under a NFC tag because it was taken at a significant time (Case White) with similar reasoning that's used for the NFC images in the Operation Storm article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker! I was scrolling around the internet in order to discover more about a person named Philip J. Cohen (the author of Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History) and I happened to find several comments which seem to imply that Cohen is a medical doctor and not a history professor. Knowing that he has been used as a source numerous times in Balkans-related articles (particularly WW2) I would like to hear what your stance is on this author and his reliability, as well as the reliability of these "medical doctor" statements. The comments can be seen here: [7], [8], [9]

Regards, 23 editor (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day 23, this book was the subject of extensive discussion mainly between myself and Antidiskriminator during the development of the Pavle Đurišić article. If you search the archives of the Đurišić talk page for "Cohen" you will see it went around in circles quite a bit and also went to WP:RSN, which was less than conclusive. My considered view is that he can be cited normally for facts and if citing his opinions he should be attributed inline. As far as anonymous people slagging it off and promoting conspiracy theories on book sites, they are completely irrelevant. The real review you linked is one of several both positive and negative. I suggest you read the archives, look at the RSN discussion and make your own decision based on the argumentation and the opinions of uninvolved editors, as I have. I would note however that the Đurišić article was reviewed thoroughly at MILHIST ACR and FAC and no-one queried the decision to use him. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright. 23 editor (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker. The Bugle newsletter runs a semi-regular interview series where we ask various editors to discuss a particular topic. Our next interview aims to bring together editors working on subjects related to the Former Yugoslavia. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here? Our goal is to despatch this edition by say 20 March, so if you can respond in the next week or so, that'd be great. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

G'day Ian. Will do, thanks for the opportunity to pass the oil. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker. Just wanted to say thanks for the positive remarks posted on my talk regarding the lifting of my ban. In some strange way, I may have got a worse deal - I've agreed to various restirctions for the sake for a few hours' free editing, it was scheduled to expire within 24 hours of starting. However, there is still this squalid feeling an editor gets when he is not allowed to edit and this beats that any time.

The recent discussion on the "persecution" affair may have left a bitter taste in both of our mouths, I realise that we kicked off our association on the wrong foot. I know it is probable that we could end up on opposing sides time and time again but now that we both know that the other is generally a good faith editor, I'd like to put the past behind and start afresh. Now that we are acquainted as editors, I hope we can work positively and constructively on future projects - even if initially opposed. Take care, best regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I generally do my best to keep an open mind. I don't always succeed, and we are paddling through rough water in Balkans articles, but I also hope we can work constructively in the same space. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

cold, hard evidence
Thank you for quality articles for Operation Bora, with a focus on history and its people like Pavle Đurišić, offering "only cold, hard accumulated evidence gleaned from archives held the world over, and distilled into scholarly texts by academics" you "would kill to have a cup of coffee with", and for living your username, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker67, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good on ya. I'm feeling the love! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for your review of Capture of Arendal. One question, though, seeing as you gave no comment regarding the review, and didn't check it for any B-Class criteria. How did you come to the conclusion that it was Start-class? It is good to know, so I'll be able to improve the article. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I gnome through Category:Unassessed military history articles and my reviews in that space can be "quick and dirty" given the 100+ article backlog. It was probably something like the almost entirely Norwegian sources and a couple of other things, but I reviewed dozens that day and I can't immediately recall. I know I'm fobbing you off, but can I suggest you list it at WP:MHAR where you will get a more considered response from someone like Hawkeye7 who has vast experience of reviewing at all levels? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's OK. The reliance on Norwegian sources is of course, last time I checked, not actually a reason not to rate as B-Class. Thanks for the tip, I'll head over to MHAR. Manxruler (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker,
I understand your point about choosing which category it fits into, but I think you'll agree that it sits on the gap between the two categories of "World History" and Military History. It's incontestably about a war, but at the same time, it's not exclusively military. In any case, it was previously reviewed (quite badly in my opinion) in the military class - the reviewer closed the nomination without allowing me to make the changes which he suggested (only minor referencing). Therefore, I'm reluctant to have to wait months (as you have to in the World History category it seems) to be re-reviewed. All the best, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into whether the original GA review was fair, but it certainly seems like a warfare article to me. My main point is that it can only have one GAN. There is no scope at WP:GAN for multiple nominations to cover multiple subsections. I will delete one, just tell me which one or I will choose? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)