User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Please enter the Battle of the Green Island, Plumus 6

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My dear brother, whom I love with all my heart, please enter the Battle of the Green Island, Plumus 6, and you will see that I was not lying. Enter the Battle of the Green Island, Plumus 6. Please, and you will see for yourself the remarkable change. Emmanuel Dha (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your message. I cannot see any of your changes to Operation Bulmus 6 at all. Which changes? Op Tagus, yes, but nothing else.. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Enter the Battle of the Green Island Blomos 6 Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Enter, my dear brother, and you will see for yourself the battle of the green island of Plumos 6 Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC) The murders of Shatit 13 with the confession of Ami Ayalon Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Ami Ayalon's confession in the Battle of the Green Island is present in addition to the killing and wounding of Shatit 13. Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC) It was never me who made the changes, but rather I published the name of the video as a confession of Ami Ayalon himself and was based on it Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC) I wanted you to be the one to lean on. Because my brother is very dear to me, God knows how much I love his brothers for you Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Look at the victims and the losses, the new difference is looking at the battle of the green island Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Look at the victims and the losses, the new difference is looking at the battle of the green island Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Look at the number of dead and wounded in the commandos of an Israeli and enter the video of the confession of Ami Ayalon, who is also present in the report of the Battle of Green Island Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Later, Ami Ayalon himself admitted that the goal was to occupy the island, and that the dead and wounded were 38. [4] This is the text. I copied it from the battle of Blomus 6 Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Note the difference from 40 Israeli commandos from Shatit, 13 killed, 38. According to Ami Ayalon, the number of wounded and killed was changed to 38 Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Look also at the update of the text after the disaster in the Battle of the Green Island, Plumos 6 Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Dear brother, have you noticed the new number of dead and injured? Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC) [5] [3] dead 80 [4] dead and wounded 38 Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC) This is the new result in the deaths and losses in the Battle of the Green Island, Plumos 6. Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Last edited 1 day ago by Thepharoah17 This is the one who made the change. I am the reason why I published the name of the channel that carried a video of confession everywhere Emmanuel Dha (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Finally, you must know how much I love your brothers. I consider you an Egyptian, by the way, Egypt is your second country, the United States and Egypt are close allies. Emmanuel Dha (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC) i realize you're shocked by ami elon's confession. i have so many amazing confessions that i wouldn't have believed had they not been with me. Emmanuel Dha (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC) My dear brother, it's almost impossible that you didn't even notice because I think you're shocked by what Ami Ayalon said, in fact, I, like you, was shocked and proud too. Emmanuel Dha (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC) By the way, I have a lot of really amazing confessions, and because I consider you my big brother, because I will soon be on the 12th of the 11th, I will be 19 years old Emmanuel Dha (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC) You are my big brother. You are a role model for me, I also want to be the owner of a wide culture Emmanuel Dha (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC) So allow me to call you my dear big brother Emmanuel Dha (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC) What news? He realized that it was the shock of the Battle of the Green Island. In the end, an Egyptian victory, according to Ami Ayalon, failed to capture the island, and this was the goal, so that they hid their great losses. Ami Elon hasn't revealed it for four years Emmanuel Dha (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC) My brother, when he looked at the report of the history of Shatit 13, they claim this credibility, even according to them, Shatit 13 lost its strength completely after an attack on the Green Island, and the morale was very low as a result that they were crushed in the Battle of the Green Island, and this was confirmed by Ami Ayalon Emmanuel Dha (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Brother, I want a response from you. I understand the shock at what Ami Ailon said, but in general, it proves that no Israelis have the ability to skillfully distort facts. Had it not been for Ami Ailon's confession, I would have recorded. An Israeli victory is inevitable Emmanuel Dha (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC) My brother, where are you? I realize that you are shocked. The sources of Israel always claim credibility and transparency, and then are shocked later. When the real truth becomes clear, I, like you, were shocked and proud of Egypt and the Egyptian army in general Emmanuel Dha (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC) The perception of Zaif al-Moug lied regarding the Battle of the Green Island and many battles as well, meaning that the goal of the Israelis was to occupy the island, which he failed in completely. The losses of Shatit 13 38 of the 40 commandos who were on the island B, in addition to the high losses of Siirt Matkal, too, at least 3 fatalities, and mostly Sirt Matcal losses are higher than disclosed Emmanuel Dha (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Did you see the documented video of the losses of Shatit 13 in the Battle of the Green Island, and the goal was also the occupation of the island, according to him Emmanuel Dha (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Do. You have a Facebook page. I have a lot of videos. Really amazing Israeli confessions. What is the name of your Facebook page? Emmanuel Dha (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Hey. You need to add all the sources - Facebook videos are not enough, we need WP:RELIABLESOURCES - to Talk:Operation Bulmus 6, and then we can start working through how reliable they are. Reliable published pieces in English, Arabic, or Hebrew would be preferred. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC) My brother, unfortunately, I was hoping to be an editor with you and teach me, but they would not allow me, although I was not lying in the end, but they would not allow me even if I was young, and in the beginning, what is your name on Facebook, my dear brother Boozybawl (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC) I am a member of Morgen 73 group in Egypt. You have a huge amount of documents you deserve. I have been following you since 2018, by the way, especially in the field of Egyptian air defense. Boozybawl (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC) They did not even take into account that the main reason for creating a page is that there is a master. From Pakistan alleges alleged war crimes of the Egyptian army and the defeat of the Yemen war claims just because the editor since 2013 for his seniority gives him an advantage Boozybawl (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC) I can edit with you if you stop following me. Or you are mediating with them to stop, especially that I was really honest in saying regarding the Battle of the Green Island, and yet I started the school year two days ago, for this time it is not in my hands much Boozybawl (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. The reason is that they treat me harshly. I am not sad, but in fact, the problem is not only in editing. The problem is in understanding what has been edited. In fact, I am very sad. I really wished that you would be released and that someone would help me. In fact, you are a good and patient person, but they will never leave me. They are having fun. By banning me, they did not even take into account that I am somewhat young. I really aspire to be a real man, but the influence of the least I am told of them is excessive, and I also want to be the owner of a wide and diverse culture. That was the best self-employment. The reason why I did not want that was that I was very bad at advanced mathematics. However, I agreed to tell them that Muhammad al-Muhandis came, Muhammad al-Muhandis went, and also in my region they are very proud and become in a state of amazement at the top faculties in Egyptian circles Boozybawl (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC) You should know that when I did all this it was love in Egypt and also my ignorance was the rules here strict on the new only the old like the gentleman from Pakistan and distorted everything I love on the page of the Egyptian armed forces no one has ever noticed Boozybawl (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Or, I sent you a message 3 months ago. In fact, I was impressed by the diversity in your culture. Add to that, you are a wonderful man, although you have repeatedly sent messages to me, of course, valuables related to the Battle of Green Island. You only delete messages. They are not like them, the first thing they often do He is not here to create content and makes allegations like the Battle of the Green Island and in the end they were not even allegations but were real, meaning that the justification for my ban was invalidated Boozybawl (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC) I'm not here to bother them at all. I check Wikipedia 24 hours a day. I learned a lot more from here than I did even in school. Of course, the Egyptian and Arab educational system in general is memorizing a huge mass of data with very limited application potential. Here I learned a lot. Boozybawl (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Those who are trying to ban me did not even try to direct me to the right path. They never dealt with me in good faith. They hate strangers, perhaps, but I also would never have created a page if it wasn’t for the fact that I saw the gain on Egypt and on the Egyptian army as well. It is ironic that the Egyptian army is a merchant operation, for example. It is known that As a result, seven Egyptian bases were slightly damaged, according to Shlomo Alon. In the result, it was written that many Egyptian bases were destroyed, and this claim is also illogical. Boozybawl (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I really wish you would teach me, but they will never allow me Mr. from Pakistan and Mr. Smith, with whom I have tried to reach an understanding more than once, but to no avail. However, I was mistaken from the beginning. I erred because of my ignorance of the rules applied only to the new editors, not the gentleman from Pakistan. Boozybawl (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Yes, I have a huge number of articles and videos, my dear brother. You are my brother from the United States. There is no country in the world that offers what the United States of America provides to Egypt annually. In fact, I read articles about American support for Egypt and supportive of relations between the two countries. Boozybawl (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC) In fact, I also hope for the conclusion of a mutual defense treaty between the two countries, and the relations become special relations, like Israel with the United States, like Canada with the United States. It is impossible to assure you, the great dear, who is strongly supportive of the relations with you, if not, when you withstood the storms Boozybawl (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The reason is for another. There is no country that I wish to have a sacred bond like America, because that is safety for my country, Egypt Boozybawl (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I also hope that the Palestinian people will support the Palestinian people. A victim of the Israeli occupation Boozybawl (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Finally, I was really hoping to be free. In coordination with you and under your supervision, even though I have just started the school year. I can communicate with you on Facebook through the Messenger app Boozybawl (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I hope to keep in touch with you, I have so many amazing documents, you'll be in awe of what you're really going to hear Boozybawl (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The Battle of the Green Island, an Egyptian victory, Ami Ayalon, the commando commander said that the goal of occupying the island is what he failed to achieve completely, in addition to the heavy losses of the Shatit commandos on the island, 40 people, of whom only two survived. I have many amazing confessions and documents Boozybawl (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I also want you to consider yourself Egyptian or at least consider Egypt as your second country. Egypt is a country with a huge history. If you want to create your own book, you are welcome in everything Egyptian, military, cultural, historical, that you want. I really hope that Egypt will have many children from outside Egypt from outside The Arab world because they all consider Egypt their second country, the motherland, and so on Boozybawl (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Or with regard to the documents in the green island tip of the iceberg Boozybawl (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC) We have carried out, according to enemy data, 439 operations, including 3 9 in November 73, 1 3 3 in December 3 7, 3 13 in January 1974. These operations, according to the reports of the International Monitoring Authority and the communications of the Israeli forces themselves, resulted in: The following losses in the enemy: 11 aircraft. 41 tanks and armored vehicles. 10 heavy machine guns. 36 “bulldozer” and engineering equipment and vehicles. The Israeli oil tanker (Serena) was hit. Sinking a sea landing boat. Killed 7 18 people of the enemy. In addition to the number of wounded, which can be estimated times the loss of life. The reader may conclude that the losses are many times that, if these are the statements of the enemy. from. The memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail are available online for free, published by his family in 2013. This is General Saad El-Din El-Shazly's rival and rival. Boozybawl (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC) We have carried out, It was an undeclared war of attrition on our part, which was satisfied with the declarations of the enemy and the reports of the United Nations. according to enemy data, 439 operations, including 3 9 in November 73, 1 3 3 in December 3 7, 3 13 in January 1974. These operations, according to the reports of the International Monitoring Authority and the communications of the Israeli forces themselves, resulted in: The following losses in the enemy: 11 aircraft. 41 tanks and armored vehicles. 10 heavy machine guns. 36 “bulldozer” and engineering equipment and vehicles. The Israeli oil tanker (Serena) was hit. Sinking a sea landing boat. Killed 7 18 people of the enemy. In addition to the number of wounded, which can be estimated times the loss of life. The reader may conclude that the losses are many times that, if these are the statements of the enemy. from. The memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail are available online for free, published by his family in 2013. This is the rival of General Saad El-Din El-Shazly Boozybawl (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail have a detailed description of the Battle of the Green Island and the battles of the War of Attrition and the October War. I also advise you to read it brother Boozybawl (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for all your messages. Please just send me messages here on this page, thankyou. Messages regarding Wikipedia should be sent on Wikipedia, not any other site. Please give me the *link*, the LINK, to Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail's memoirs. I cannot read Arabic so it's hard for me to search it myself. There is no problem adding the Egyptian claims for losses / damage to the article(s), but they will be presented alongside the Israeli claims for losses / damage, because WP presents *both sides.* Buckshot06 (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I sent the link twice bro, did you get the link? Boozybawl (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I copied and sent it but it may not arrive Boozybawl (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC) But you can write in English the memoirs of General Ahmed Ismail, download and atman, it will appear in front of you in English Boozybawl (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC) General Ahmed Ismail's memoirs on Nour's library are also available in English Boozybawl (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Nour Electronic Library Please just write the memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail in English and it will be available to you immediately Boozybawl (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Brother when you finish the book please tell me you read it to give me your rating Boozybawl (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Write in English the memoirs of Field Marshal Ahmed Ismail, my dear brother. You will see in front of you his office Nour. Immediately Boozybawl (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC) What can I tell you, have you read the book, brother? Boozybawl (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Where did you put the link? On this page? On another page? Where? Copy in the web address. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC) I put the link several times, but unfortunately it does not appear. But I will try again Boozybawl (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Finally, I have found the solution. Enter my page. You will have the link of Noor's electronic library, my dear brother Boozybawl (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I've hatted the above as sockpuppetry. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Egyptian army. Your talkpage, your rules, so if you'd rather unhat that's fine, but thought I'd save you the trouble of a long back-and-forth with someone who's going to keep getting blocked for socking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did you go

Where did you go Dante Rixy (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Brother, we will continue here Dante Rixy (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

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 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

4018 CCTS redirect

When I was working on the 338th page, I noted a couple of things for future action, one of which was to expand the role of the 4018th (which isn't quite correct -- the squadron was established at Carswell and moved to Dyess) as background to the 338th's role as the B-2 schoolhouse, then make 4018th Combat Crew Training Squadron a redirect to [[338th Strategic Bombardment #Training Squadron]]. The page should be moved. Our friend reversed the order of the unit's designations as a training unit at Dyess, Which I corrected. I would have moved the page, but it needs a move over redirect, a power I have been denied. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The 4018 CCTS is now pointed at the 'root' page for the 338th BS / CCTS / SBTS etc. It cannot be pointed at the 338th Strategic Bombardment Training Squadron, because that's a redirect. If there's any page moves and redirect fixes needed, please say so. Is there any WP:RS for the 338 CCTS / SBTS that I can use to fill in some of the data required? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Alas, a primary source (ACC Order) and a reliable source (AFHRA page for the 96th Test Wing]] confirm that I was mistaken about the order of designations, although they do not confirm the date of redesignation from SBTS to CCTS. So the change is not correct. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Apostolopoulos for your message. I do not reside in the United States; I'm a New Zealander. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments on French Army page

Before you read this, just be aware I can see this wasn't directed at anyone, but thought I should point it out still.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The user in question has been inserting grossly oversimplified and misleading information on a range of pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rehoboth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at List of inactive AFCON wings of the United States Air Force. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The link I added was an extremely helpful resource on building a *super low traffic* page. I would request you to consider how much actual disruption the link I added created. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited XII Tactical Air Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 7th Fighter Wing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

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: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Transfer of units to USAF

In 1947, when the USAF became independent, the Army transferred all Army Air Forces, Air Service and Air Corps units (there were a number of Air Corps units that had never been in the Army Air Forces, and a few Air Service units) to the USAF. This transfer did not depend on the units' status at the time (active, inactive, disbanded or demobilized). Note, for example III Bomber Command and other command level units that were disbanded by the USAF on 8 October 1948. The AAF could not have done this since it no longer existed in 1948. Or the 492d Bombardment Squadron, which had been disbanded in 1942 as an Air Corps unit, but was reconstituted by USAF in 1960. Between 1984 and 1986 (in addition to actions affecting combat units) a huge number of support units, inactive or disbanded since WW II were reconstituted by USAF and redesignated or consolidated by the USAF. Another large number of units that had been inactive for the same period were formally disbanded by the USAF. Because USAF would not have the authority to take these actions unless the units were part of the USAF, I believe these units are properly classified as USAF units. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Lineagegeek, happy new year 2022!! (still 1444 AH for the Muslims, it appears).

I read your careful explanation of the exact entitlements permanent USAF wings could inherit from, for example, MAJCOM Strategic Wings, inserted in each article text, with much appreciation. You've also inserted, though in note form, a careful explanation of why you believe intermediate USAAF commands began their existence as "2d Interceptor Command" etc rather than the notional "II Interceptor Command." I believe that the changeover from the United States Army to the United States Air Force also deserves this kind of explanatory note, in the main/history text of the articles, explaining, with the best references we can establish/obtain, exactly what you've said above. I suggest you start such a note with your opening sentence above: "In 1947, when the USAF became independent, the Army transferred all Army Air Forces, Air Service and Air Corps units (there were a number of Air Corps units that had never been in the Army Air Forces, and a few Air Service units) to the USAF" possibly slightly altered.

Infoboxes are a pain and are misleading. But for an initial idea, we could consider a two-line setup, for a notional formation or unit constituted in 1943 and *disbanded* (rather than inactivated) in 1948, top line USAAF (1943-1947) and bottom line USAF (1947-48).

How does that sound for a start? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joint task force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Task Force 77.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East Indies Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanganyika.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Air Officer Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Hughes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Army and the Air Force

I've been playing with this, and I see you have too. A Couple of thoughts:

I like your idea to use {{army|USA}}<br><air force|USA}} in infoboxes

I have no objection to the use of {{army|USA}} in the case of units where USAF has taken no actions whatsoever.

I believe that {{army|USA}} in infoboxes is far better and more in accord with the instructions for branch in the infobox than [[Army Air Forces]]

I think that the change assoicated with this in articles about individual units are best limited to those that apply to the unit article. To see what I mean (and see if you agree), see my changes to V Fighter Command

Regards, Lineagegeek (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean I think restricting it to something along the lines of "In September 1947, [V Fighter Command] was transferred to the United States Air Force (USAF) in inactive status. A year later, in October 1948, USAF disbanded the command."

That phrasing wouldn't actually mention that the USAF had been created on/around that date, something which generalist readers can't be expected to know for certain. Thus I would add a sentence in front. "All Army air units and formations were turned over to the newly created United States Air Force (USAF) on XX September 1947 [can we establish the exact date?, or was it the formation date of the USAF?]. Thus the command was transferred to the USAF in inactive status. A year later, in October 1948, the USAF disbanded it." Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

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: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 4th Home Counties Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edenbridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

• 1Lib1Ref 2022
• Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Commodore Submarine Service

I reverted your recent edits to Commodore Submarine Service because that content is already at Royal Navy Submarine Service, which is linked from the first sentence. Commodore Submarine Service is about the post, and doesn't need full details of the flotilla. Such duplication is confusing, and also liable to lead to difficulties in maintaining consistently. If you disagree, you are (of course) entitled to discuss at Talk:Commodore Submarine Service. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My edits were the first part of a merge. No reliable third-party sources for the term "Royal Navy Submarine Service" exist (apart from the single recent page on the official site, possibly), and it does not feature in the Navy List, now Navy Directory. I intend to merge the entire thing into Commodore Submarine Service, or possibly Commodore Submarine Flotilla, whichever is the most used. It would have been much better at Flag Officer Submarines, a much longer used term, but the force has shrunk now significantly.. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East Africa Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evelyn Baring.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Afghan army

If article is describing different Afgan armies and you moved it to descriptrive title "Afghan army" than name "Afghan Army" why don't you update the lead and infobox? Infobox maybe problematic because this is dedicated to one army. Eurohunter (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I *have* undated the lead and infobox. Did you notice this edit and the series of edits afterwards? The article, in fact, *is* dedicated to one army - the Afghan Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Military of Afghanistan

I don't really mind one way or the other whether we treat the different regimes' militaries as continuing entities or not, but it should be kept consistent. What are your thoughts on Military of Afghanistan, Afghan army, and Islamic Emirate Army? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Respectively, Afghan Armed Forces (though "Military of Afghanistan" is the default name for such military or armed forces articles when we don't know the official current name, I have never seen any reference to the Afghan armed forces as the 'military of Afghanistan' in any written descriptions of the Afghan forces; Afghan Armed Forces has been used however); secondly, Afghan Army rather than 'Afghan army'; and Islamic Emirate Army should be merged into Afghan Army (probably under the name Islamic Emirate Army but only *IF* we have reliable sources, not just one newspaper article *headline* not used in the article main body from TOLONews). The title for the moment should probably remain at Afghan Army until we have reliable repeated *official* Taliban sources say their ground forces are called the 'Islamic Emirate Army.' Giustozzi 2015 and other reliable sources do not break out the Taliban army of 1996-01 as a totally separate entity, they treat it in the main line of continuing Afghan military forces, and that is the general practice across Wikipedia as well.

You will note that the South African Army was not split into multiple articles after the ANC took power in 1994, nor the Burmese Army split after the repeated military takeovers that turned Burma into Myanmar (everything at Myanmar Army. If we add far too much information to fit one article, however, WP:SIZERULE applies and subarticles can be created that provide more detail (like History of the Afghan Armed Forces 2002-2021). In that case however, the main country army article - Afghan Army or AAF - would still summarize that detailed history. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care how the split/merge is handled, but the naming should follow policy. If you want to call it "Afghan armed forces" and "Afghan air force", that's also perfectly fine with me. But using those same terms with capital letters incorrectly implies that we're talking about a proper noun, when historically different official names have been used. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not correct. Check Category:Armies by country (or, re the below, Category:Air forces by country) and you will clearly see we use title case. Zambian Army, not Zambian army. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, then they should be moved because title case is strictly against Wikipedia naming policy: wp:LOWERCASE. Article titles must be in sentence case. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case, you're advocating a mass renaming of articles, not just regarding Afghanistan. Suggest you (a) start discussions at some appropriate forum, with a notice at WT:MILHIST, so that the community involved knows; and (b), until that point in time, we stick to current naming conventions for state army and air force articles, clearly demonstrated at those categories. Apart from inertia, I have no dog in that fight; my point here thoughout is that there is almost always one article for the whole history of a state's army or air force, and that those articles are invariably capitalised, in title case. That also accords with COMMONNAME when referring to a state's army or air force formally, but without knowing the exact official title of the force under any current regime.

←===Afghan Air Force=== Now this move I do disagree with. How can you call it an article about the entire history of all the air forces and insist the article be named after a single air force of a former regime? Using capital letters makes it a proper noun. "Afghan air force" would be fine for the article scope you're describing. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Because Hamid Karzai et al (or actually probably the Department of Defense media people, who write so much articles that their preferred terminology gradually gets accepted as the WP:COMMONNAME) happened to choose, when they upgraded the Afghan National Army Air Corps into a full air force, the same name/title as the generic WP label for any state's air force. Eg, Mali - Malian Air Force; Brazilian Air Force; Argentine Air Force; French Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

See my reply above. I don't have any problem with that being the common name, but if it is a generic article we can't capitalize it is a proper noun. Article titles must be written in sentence case per wp:LOWERCASE, and should only be uppercased if they are truly proper nouns. Many of those countries have only had one military entity, which would make capitalization appropriate. That is not the case in Afghanistan. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 11:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So we would create the "Islamic Emirate Air Force" with two horribly undersourced paragraphs, and keep it separate from the Afghan Air Force article? Or we change one generic air force article to lower case, while the rest is in title case? Nonsense. This site is not a rolling news report - we have the luxury of waiting. Wait until we have enough official statements from the TB to confirm what they intend as the official title of the reborn air force in English - which might be Afghan Air Force, or Islamic Emirate Air Force, and then move the main article, and until then stick to the naming conventions the military editing community have used from the beginning. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don't care whether there are two articles or one. You have said you want it to be a generic article. Fine. A generic article must have a generic, sentence case title under Wikipedia policy. If the "military editing community" doesn't want to follow the policy, you'll have to seek an exception to it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have thought about it and I'm fine with doing it your way. I have been working on this as part of the Afghanistan editing community, not the military one, and have been trying to keep the timeline of IRA and IEA governance clear. This has typically meant separate articles for institutions that existed in parallel; that does not be the case here, as the new authorities have been treating this military as distinct from their insurgent forces. So, I think it can be treated as a continuing entity, and I'm fine with using the last widely-reported name for that entity. Would you like to help with a merge of Islamic Emirate Forces into Military of Afghanistan? I'd like to know your thoughts before I get started. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy to. Would prefer that. Basically take the structure of Military of Afghanistan, and insert the appropriate parts of Islamic Emirate Forces into it, and make sure the whole articles ends up at the label of either Islamic Emirate Forces or Islamic Emirate Army, whichever the most reliable Taliban Govt sources seem to stick to (or third name if they go with a variation). Happy to help. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

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 on World War II in Europe

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

RAF Dishforth

Hi; have reformatted, re-written and cited RAF Dishforth back into article status. I hope it passes muster with you - I understand why you redirected it. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Belize Defence Force

Hi, I noticed that you are one of national militaries task force that still active. Could you please put comment on discussion at Talk:Belize Defence Force#RFC on usage of image2 parameter on infobox. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom unban that might be of interest

Hi, The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#MustafaO unblocked might be of interest. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D thankyou. Can we immediately re-request a general rule on disruptive activity for the Horn of Africa? You worked on that, didn't you? You know where the old discussions are? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that I didn't work on the HoA restrictions. I tend to agree that they're necessary if ArbCom is doing stuff like this. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

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: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

British Forces Cyprus

added a link pointing to Episkopi

RAF Bampton Castle

added a link pointing to Bampton Castle

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at List of battalions of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's). Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Arjayay please do not continue getting in the way of useful further research and wikipedia-expansion links!! The draft in question contains greatly valuable, partially sifted information which would be a great basis for creating further articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

NO, MOS:DRAFTNOLINK is quite specific "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (and even in that case with care – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid)."
If you think it could be useful to other editors, then add it to the articles talk page, not the article page - although I note the creator has been indeffed - Arjayay (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"The draft in question contains greatly valuable, partially sifted information which would be a great basis for creating further articles." That is a fact, and will not change no matter how many times you rigidly repeat the wording out of MOS:DRAFTNOLINK!! Whether or not you start making your remarks in all-caps won't change anything either!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

British Order of battle 1940

Hello every body, I'm looking the order of battle of the British Army, in september 1940, in England, to resist to the sealion operation [to fight off Operation Sealion ]. Specialy the number and type off Tank and ordonnance weapons

Thank's a lot for your answers

And sorry for my poor English...

Jean1505 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean1505 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That's no problem Jean1505. My French or Russian would be equally rusty. Most authoritative is the diagram in Collier, "Defence of the United Kingdom;" also write to Leo Niehorster, because http://niehorster.org/500_eto/40-09_sealion.html does not include an order of battle or a weapons list.

Nearest thing we may have here is a draft for 1939: User:Coldstreamer20/Structure of the British and Indian Armies in 1939.

Baseline official source though very old is Collier, Defence of the United Kingdom (1957). See this chapter.

Now I realise - do you want a list of military units, potentially with type of equipment and unit location, that is, an "Order of Battle?" Or do you want a list of weaponry Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces / Home Forces itself was holding at the time, principally tanks? Can you be more specific about what you mean by an "ordnance weapon?" Anti-tank guns? Field artillery? Others? In that case take a look at British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War. I'm pinging EnigmaMcmxc as he is more of an expert on this subject, as well as Nigel Ish and JustinSmith, people involved in that article. Do come back to me if you still have queries - we'll find this out!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank's a lot Mr Buckshot06, with the links you give to me, I have a lot of informations.

To answer to your question, ordnance weapon are Anti-Tank gun, field artillery, Infantry Gun, AA Gun...all of them in facts...

I don't really need the unit's location, it's simple to found, but the number and the type of differents guns and tanks in september 1940.

But, I must give the reason of my research.

I'm a wargamer, a boardwargamer (I'm 52 old).

I've found a game named "Britain Stands Alone"(GMT GAMES, 1994...). We call this type of wargame "a what if", because it permit to play an hypothetical battle. Here, "Operation SEALION".

It's a very good game thanks to I discovered number of unknown materials (Tauchpanzer, Brandenberger, Home Guard Organization, Pillbox...).

So, I decided to creat scenaris for an other game "Advanced Squad Leader" (ASL), it's a tactical wargame, born in 1982....wich is played by a lot of people all around the world.

It's because I need this type of information.

I give yu my email, I think it's more simple (for me principaly...)

maryjeanmimi@gmail.com

How can I contact NigelISH, Justin SMITH or EnigmaMcmxc ?

Thanks again !

Best regards

Jean (John) 2A01:E0A:4B8:A80:1D2E:8091:C888:D35E (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jean, you wait for their answers on this page, or you can contact them directly at their talkpages. Also I would recommend posting a query at WT:MILHIST where not just us but all the Milhist community can see it. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Forces Cyprus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episkopi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

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 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06

Thank you for creating Structure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Marine Corps Law Enforcement Battalions

Hello, Buckshot06! I'm very grateful to you for your message on my talk page. Yes, I wished to create an article devoted to Military Police of the United States Marine Corps in Russian Wikipedia but I faced the lack of information in open sources.

I can see, English Wikipedia contains the articles 2nd Law Enforcement Battalion and 4th Law Enforcement Battalion, and there are no articles devoted to 1st and 3rd ones. And there's no article about US Marine Corps Military Police as a whole, what I consider an oversight. I've found the following sources:

Here is the history of the 1st Law Enforcement Battalion https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/HD/Lineage%20and%20Honors/Ground%20Units/1ST%20LAW%20ENFORCEMENT%20BATTALION.pdf?ver=2019-02-26-092241-377&timestamp=1551379020519

Here is the history of the 3rd Law Enforcement Battalion https://www.iiimef.marines.mil/Units/III-MIG/Commands/3D-Law-Enforcement-Battalion/

Here is the news about deactivation of all 3 active duty law enforcement battalions, namely 1st, 2nd, 3rd (4th LEB is in reserve). https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/10/28/all-3-marine-law-enforcement-battalions-are-now-deactivated/

It proved more difficult to find the information about the history of USMC Military Police. I could only find a fragmentary information about organizational structure of U.S. Marine Corps Military Police in different time periods. Here is the information about USMC MP structure during the Okinawa campaign (see pages 31-33 and note the document Amphibious Operations (Phib), Volume 19, Employment of Military Police. Marine Corps Schools: 1945.) https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA299015.pdf And here is the Marine Corps Tactical Publication 10-10F of 18 October 2019, which provides the doctrinal basis for employment of military police in support of Marine air-ground task force operations. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCTP%2010-10F.pdf?ver=2020-03-24-083204-067#:~:text=Military%20police%20(MP)%20provide%20the,of%20military%20operations%20(ROMO). It's not enough for creating good article but I think this can be used.

I trust I've been of service. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you K8M8S8. I regret the closing down of the Soldat.ru forum. You will help *us* create an article on USMC Military Police / Law Enforcement, with these sources; do what you can with them for the period of this breech in relations. I am entirely happy to help you with pointers to access freely available unclassified information, and to retain some measure of linkages "across the lines" in this uncertain time.

Of course, I have a million questions about the current operations, for which your access to freely available Russian unclassified sources would be of great help, especially regarding additional links in Russian specifically about the 21st Guards Motor Rifle Division now 38th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, so that I can update that page and get it moved to 38th Guards MRB. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia contains the article about 38th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Vitebskaya order of Lenin Red Banner order of Suvorov Brigade (Military Unit Number 21720). Here is Ukrainian version. Here are some additional links I've found https://voinskayachast.net/suhoputnie-voyska/motostrelkovie/vch21720 https://aldamuratova.ru/sluzhba/v-ch-21720.html Here are some news related to this military unit https://www.amur.info/news/2019/12/10/164570 https://golubschool.ru/tpost/11bi68ksif-armeiskii-bunt-kontraktniki-v-amurskoi-o Ukrainian media reported that the Brigade suffered heavy losses in the fighting in Ukraine in early April 2022 https://www.ukrinform.ru/rubric-ato/3451413-vsu-unictozili-elitnoe-podrazdelenie-vojsk-rf-motostrelkovuu-brigadu-iz-amurskoj-oblasti.html K8M8S8 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivan Pavlovsky, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ukrainian and Vasily Petrov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:1st Canadian Parachute Battalion

The 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion is an officially recognized predecessor / perpetuated unit of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Merely because it didn't have the title regiment in it did not mean it wasn't treated as one per the regimental tradition. As such it also belongs as a sub-category in the Category: Canadian Airborne Regiment area.

Dear LordHood2552, you need to insert ~~~~ to sign posts on talk pages.

It is not a regiment, and should not have the category "regiment" attached to it. It is a battalion.

I also fundamentally disagree with your grouping of every vaguely associated article in this encyclopedia into a category under the regimental name. It simply does not meet the intent of WP:CATDEF (which you should read). Taken to extremes, that would have every D-Day unit in Canadian service with the D-Day category in each of their associated new category you seem determined to sent up. I can see some reason behind adding regiments which were merged into a descendant unit, but no justifiable reason for a battalion that disappeared decades before a regiment with virtually no precedent at all - *formed from companies from the standing infantry regiments!!* - not mergers appearing in such a category. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, however, thank you for starting to communicate. If you wish to persist on this site, you will have to (a) communicate, and (b) understand and follow this site's policy rules (things like CATDEF). Buckshot06 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In similar situations, Halifax Volunteer & Provisional Battalion(s) were not "regiments," neither were all the Battalions of the CEF, No. 2 Construction Battalion, the Household Division, Joint Task Force 2, 1st, 2nd, and 5th Battalions of the Canadian Mounted Rifles, the Victoria Independent Squadron, 6th Battalion "Fusiliers," the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, definitely not a regiment!!, 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion, 104, 87, and 22 Field Batteries (especially since we have a category for Category:Artillery batteries), or the Canadian SAS Company. Neither was 8th Brigade, Canadian Field Artillery, in the First World War, a "battery"!! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

USMC Military and Civilian Police

Hello! Please examine my work on these articles: United States Marine Corps Military Police and United States Marine Corps Civilian Police. Have I done it right? K8M8S8 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06

Thank you for creating 752nd Guards Motor Rifle Regiment.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Canadian Intelligence Corps

added a link pointing to Admiralty

Russian 201st Military Base

added a link pointing to Border Troops

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

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 on a World War II summit and the American space program

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Rationalizing the Russian military units and formations cat structure to reflect the VKS

What do you think about rationalizing the Russian military units and formations category structure to reflect the creation of the Aerospace Forces (VKS)? I'm thinking we have a separate category for VKS units, then subcats for the Air Force units (VVS), Air and Missile Defense Forces (Voyska PVO and PRO) units, and Space Forces units. The complication created by the VKS reorganization is that the Russian Air Force covered all of these branches at some point between 2009 and 2015, so categories would be anachronistic for some units within the overall categories. Also unclear is the role of Army Aviation post-2015, it was definitely part of the Russian Air Force from 2003 but ru:Армейская_авиация_Российской_Федерации describes it as Army Aviation of the VKS now. However, the ruwiki VKS article doesn't mention Army Aviation as a force under the VKS and there's no separate deputy commander for army aviation under the VKS unlike the other branches.

Additionally, categories such as Category:Air armies of the Russian Air Forces are not accurate since 2015 as the Armies of VVS and PVO are under central VKS command rather than the air forces since they command units from different 'branches' within the VKS, similar to the RGF's combined arms armies. Suggest creating an Air and Air Defense armies of the Russian Aerospace Forces category for the armies that have existed post-2015. Kges1901 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Let me do some more thinking, but when faced with some of these issues in a different context, I did create Category:Infantry regiments of the Indian Army from 1947 which preserved the exact correct title, but broke off the category at an arbitrary date. Something of that sort might create the possibility of "Regiments of the Russian Air Forces 1992-200X," up to the point where the VVS is no longer the highest applicable HQ, and "Regiments of the Russian Air Forces 200X-onwards," which if we tweaked it the categories properly might solve the problem. Many units and formations would of course be in both categories. Similarly I split Category:Formations of the NATO Military Command Structure to reflect the major force reductions of 1994. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• So Regiments/Divisions of the Russian Air Forces before 2009 to reflect when most units were disbanded or became part of aviation bases and then and then Regiments/Divisions of the Russian Air Forces after 2014 for when the regiment/division structure was returned to? Kges1901 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• We cannot avoid the commands-and-bases era. Would suggest "Units and formations of the Russian Air Force 1992-2014" and thereafter "Units and formations of the Russian Air Force 2014 onwards." Would you suggest tweaks? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• That would make sense. Kges1901 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Grand, well suggest we try creating a first trial category with the least ambiguity and room for misinterpretation, and go from there, slowly.. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

*I have created the branch category for the VKS under Category:Military of Russia which was previously missing, and placed the VVS and Space Force cats under it. The Russian Air Force cat currently includes both the Imperial Russian Air Force and Soviet Air Force cats under it, which I am not sure that it should. Putting the Category:Russian Air Force is technically anachronistic for pre-2015 unless we split the Russian Air Force cat itself, but that might not make sense since we should only have one article for the Russian Air Force. Something that appears to complicate the categories in general is that the PVO-PRO command only controls the air defense units around Moscow of the 1st Army of PVO and PRO according to milkavkaz, while the VVS command has administrative control of the air and air defense armies under the military districts which are operationally under the control of the MD commanders. This means that most of the air defense units are actually still under VVS administration. However, the PVO-PRO command also includes the Aerospace Defense Academy and the PVO Higher Military School, the air defense officer military education system, accordong to the official structure on the Russian MoD website. Commons already has a mostly accurate cat structure for the VKS here [1]. Kges1901 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Often "Military of [Country]" categories include service branch categories directly under the highest category, and because the VVS existed in Russia as a full service 1992-2014, it would be completely appropriate to have it directly under the highest category, and within the VKS category. Yes, that would lead to new subcategories for Russian Air Force, VVS 1992-2014, and VVS onwards, at which point having the Imperial Russian Air Force in the same category suddenly looks much more legitimate, because they're all periods of a service with substantial historical continuities. The main Russian Air Force article stays under our current VVS category, and does not sit in any of the new subcategories. Does the PVO-PRO HQ retain what we would call *technical* control of the air defence formations under the Armies VVS i PVO? They have final signoff on equipment upgrades, TO/TOE changes, etc? Whether or not that is the case, we don't have a proper article for PVO-PRO, unless I have missed something, and the details we're getting into - TECH CON - are far too arcane for most. We write for generalists. Leave those super intricate details aside until we can create an article that explains *what* PVO-PRO is clearly in English, and then we have a {{main}} for any new subcategories, at the very least. Creating the VKS category updates our whole category structure (enough for this first part, especially since I didn't see any paychecks to either you nor me for this highly technical work!!); but the categories are *for* the articles, not the other way around, so we need an explaining article first. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that you and I possibly ought to consider sticking our heads together and going carefully through the flying order of battle. Neither Ruwiki nor enwiki 14th Air and Air Defence Forces Army lists the 120th Guards IAP or 266th ShAP as active, which is disproven by your careful writeup of 120th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment. How many other errors are out there? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • These units are not listed under 14th Air and Air Defense Forces Army's current structure because they were both transferred to the 11th Air and Air Defense Forces Army under the 2009 reorganization, per milkavkaz. This makes sense because Zabaykalsky Krai, where Step and Domna are located, is under the Eastern MD rather than the Central MD, and we know that the 11th is associated with the Eastern MD. From 1998 to 2009, both regiments were under 14th Air and Air Defense Forces Army because the latter was formed from the merger of the 23rd Air Army (the Transbaikal MD's Air Force), and the 14th Separate Air Defense Army. Kges1901 (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episkopi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06

Thank you for creating 25th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: thanks for your note!! Many thanks for your page curation work. If you come across anything military related you want some advice on, feel free to ask me. Happy editing!! Save Ukraine!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! North8000 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06

Thank you for creating 15th Guards Motor Rifle Regiment.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

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 four recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Prostitution in Afghanistan

Get a hold buddy, you're POV pushing in that article.[2] If you persist I'll report you to administrators.--39.41.35.86 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Use the talk page to express your concerns first, do not use words such as "cursory" to describe any source in any article, and if you have a problem with the "Pakistan Frontier," take it to WP:RSN, which is the approved channel for such things. Don't try to character-assassinate any source with faint praise in any article. That is expressing a POV on the source. I should also note that I was an administrator myself. When I was an administrator, I blocked a number of people. I was intimately involved in getting Middayexpress blocked; Mrg3105; and others. I only stood down as an administrator earlier this year. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

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 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Buckshot06/Archive 26,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note. I could have put the same note on your talk page, should I have considered it justified. Where do you wish to seek third opinions? My usual recourse is WT:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, my single reversion of your edit is not an edit war; please review WP:EW and WP:BRD.

I have opened a discussion in the article's Talk page; you are welcome to participate. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Air Transport Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton Field.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

17th Training Group

Hey,

Do you think you could add more sources to 17th Training Group? It's not clear right now that it meets the GNG. Ovinus (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Lineagegeek you may be aware of other sources beyond the ones I have added. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced this group has notability apart from the training wings it has been assigned to at Goodfellow (unlike its companion 517th Training Group). Articles about USAF training wings and groups are usually limited to those that continue the histories of former combat units. The history of this page indicates that when the page was first started, an editor believed this unit was related to the 17th Bombardment Group, and would fit that category. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

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 on the Falklands War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Aardvark

Where does the idea that "Aardvark" as a name for the F-111 only dates from 1996? I retired from the Air Force in 1983 and it was by far the most popular nickname for the plane then? (I personally preferred Switchblade Edsel). Lots of popular names are used more than official names, especially in the case like the F-111 where there is no official name. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the retirement story carefully. The "Official Popular Name" [never capitalized, just making a point here] was only *recognized* on the date of the retirement ceremony. The Air Force appears to have done something unusual; they *recognized* a name that had been floating around, like Viper for the F-16, for up to decades, but only when the aircraft was going out of service. Up until that date, one cannot say GD F-111 Aardvark, like McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, because the official popular name had not been formally bestowed by the USAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course it would be just fine to put General Dynamics F-111 "Aardvark" with quotation marks, but I would much prefer not to have any official popular name attached at all. (Unless it's "Pig"!! like No. 81 Wing RAAF called it!! only joking!!). Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). 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 doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06. Thank you for creating 6th Fighter Aviation Corps PVO. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Ferrying categories

I removed the ferrying and transport squadron category from the military aircraft ferrying units category since only transport units are left in the category. I won't be insulted if you disagree and revert. I gave some consideration to moving the ferrying and transport category to just transport, but I can see some utility in keeping it. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that if you have the word "ferrying" in the category title it needs to stay in the ferrying higher category. Because the word "ferry" is in the title!! I would argue that we need to move the ferry-and-transport category to just transport, because of the way WP categories work. My thought would be: (a) move the subcategory, ferrying sqns of AAF, to only the ferrying category; (b) change the higher category ferrying-and-transport sqns title to just transport sqns as you have considered. Then each is only ferrying, and transport, even if the categories are full of practically only redirects. Thus no-one will look for ferrying sqns in the ferrying-and-transport category, nor will they find transport squadrons when they are looking for ferrying squadrons: all that will be avoided.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RAF Boulmer - No 9 Battle Training School

Hello,

While browsing RAF Boulmer, No. 9 Battle Training School is listed as a wartime unit, i checked my books from Lake (Flying units of the RAF, 1999) and Sturtivant (Royal Air Force flying training and support units, 1997) and the unit doesn't appear. It's referenced to a website called Forgotten Airfields Europe operated by someone called "Ronald V" link here, it's also on the Heritage Gateway site.

Have you heard of the unit? I've never heard of "Battle Training School" before. My best guess is that it's part of an OTU but i really don't know. Gavbadger (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My best guess is that we should apply this site's rules. Sturtivant and "Air of Authority" are just about the best things we have. Move the mention with the references to the talk page, and list only what's in Lake, Sturtivant, and "Air of Authority" (probably RLGs and 808 Naval Air Squadron only). Buckshot06 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Armed Forces of Liberation of Angola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Directorate of Intelligence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

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 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability of RAF Wings and Groups

Hello,

Having seen both List of wings of the Royal Air Force and List of Royal Air Force groups and the large number of red links in each. What are the notability requirements for creating an article about individual wing and group? Gavbadger (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited General of the army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Taylor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Army units and formations of the Red Army and Soviet Army

A tag has been placed on Category:Army units and formations of the Red Army and Soviet Army indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rear of the Russian Armed Forces

added links pointing to Chita, Karpaty, Iman, Beloyarsky and Glinka

National Guard (Iraq)

added a link pointing to Iraqi insurgency

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy within

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit.

It appears to be Somali_Civil_War

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mr Philbrick. You will see that I do attribute when copying from WP, over and over again, if you look at my last 500 edits. Here I forgot, and as a result, I made a "procedural edit" and said in that next edit the material came from Somali Civil War. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somali Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UNOSOM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military units and formations disbanded in the 1790s

A tag has been placed on Category:Military units and formations disbanded in the 1790s indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 10th Independent Air Defence Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirny.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Longstanding categories

When a category has been around for 14 years as part of a broader structure the burden is on the person wishing to delete it to nominate it and explain their reasons, not simply empty it and shout a random policy. Your emptying is disputed so please nominate not simply keep emptying. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You added, created, that ridiculous category which you surely understood sometime in that 14 years was unviable, being only 1 entry. It's crazy, complete violation of SMALLCAT. But the standard way out of this is a WP:THIRDOPINION - make a post on any forum you like (I tend to go to Milhist, but that's only because most of my editing is military, rather than say Kenya-related) and I will respond, and other editors can put their thoughts and we can come to a consensus. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not create the category as a glance at the history would have shown and SMALLCAT does cover wider schemes. WP:CFD is the forum for proposing deleting a category and the burden is on the person proposing deletion of a longstanding category. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Timrollpickering and Buckshot06, I'm glad I found you both here so I didn't have to post an edit-warring template on your talk pages. Please don't edit war over what categories Nigel Leakey should be in. You are both very experienced editors and know that you should take this discussion to the article talk page, which is preferable than a User talk page. Talking about this on the article talk page or a WikiProject talk page can bring in other editors to the discussion so it's not a "me vs. you" discussion. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I was just alerted to this dispute because the category you are warring over keeps going empty, then getting filled, then going empty. Apparently, Nigel Leakey is the only individual who can be assigned this category. I think it might be more appropriate since this is a small, one article category, his article was placed in a less specific, more general category that covers this award, like Category:Kenyan recipients of the Victoria Cross. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Liz you will understand that your point immediately above was *exactly* the thrust of my removal of the category in the first place. There are a whole set of one-article categories in the higher category, and I was initially bamboozled, completely taken aback, that anyone would object to the windup of a single-article category. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

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: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 53

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

New FM 3-0

I think I got the color right; but what I wanted to see updated was the link to the New FM 3-0. Is the green background correct? Please feel free to correct my attempted contribution. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

FOSM record

The first thing is that the record is not actually at TNA, but is retained by MOD (under Section 3.4 of the Public Record Act 1958 - as amended). This suggests it is still classified above OFFICIAL. You should be able to make an FOI request, particularly as it's not clear if the review due

(David Underdown, 30 December 2014. [signature information added by Buckshot06 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC) ]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi! I am so sorry for reverting your edit. It's just I was wanting to revert another efit but ended up reverting yours by accident.

Once again I am for the inconvenience caused by my edit. I hope you forgive me Wikiwow is just W0W!! (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nationstate armoured warfare branches

Hello. Just curious, why is this category different from Category:Armoured units and formations by country? Gedrose (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Armies are divided into administrative and operational groupings. All armoured or tank groupings are usually *administratively* assigned to the Tank or Armoured grouping,the Nationstate armoured warfare branches, eg the Royal Armoured Corps, the French Arme blindee cavalrie, the Armored Branch of the U.S. Army, the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps, the Russian Tank Troops. This administrative grouping sits alongside with Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, Signals - other administrative groupings.

Operationally, here are the Category:Armoured units and formations by country. These are the units within the administrative tank or armoured branch - eg for the Americans the 64th Armored Regiment, 66th Armored Regiment, 72d Armored Regiment, 5th Armored Brigade, 1st/2nd/3rd Armoured Divisions, all operational units and formations, but brigades and divisions also have Infantry and Artillery within them.

So it is a difference in usage and a sub-specialisation. Is that clear or do I need to explain in another way? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand the admin and operational separation, as I am from a country whose army has administrative regiments and operational corps/divisions/brigades etc. I should have clarified that it is the word "Nationstate" that looks odd to me. I think it would read better as Category: Armoured warfare branches by country. Gedrose (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

WP uses ridiculous imprecise language. Pakistan is a nationstate; "country" is a much more slangy term. I could have called the category "State armoured warfare branches." Buckshot06 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

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: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Soviet Air Force bases

added links pointing to Kamenka and Bereza

929th State Flight Test Centre named for V. P. Chkalov

added a link pointing to Turgai

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06. Thank you for your work on 894th Fighter Aviation Regiment. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

103rd Rocket Brigade moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 103rd Rocket Brigade, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

50th Fighter Aviation Regiment moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 50th Fighter Aviation Regiment, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Buckshot06!

Happy New Year!

Buckshot06,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your help with the Spanish Regiment Faithful15 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

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 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Buckshot06. Thank you for your work on Basra Operations Command. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Soviet Army divisions 1989–1991, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tula, Perm and Sverdlovsk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a source

I've recently been editing bombardment squadrons starting at 401. So, for the foreseeable future, I will be dealing with units that were constituted as reconnaissance squadrons, then redesignated bombardment squadrons (spring of 1942 for heavy and medium, earlier for dive and light bomb units). So I started looking for a reference for the fact that until 1942 reconnaissance squadrons were organized on the basis of one per bombardment group, but they were attached to the group, not assigned, then were redesignated bombardment squadrons and assigned. I've looked in Craven and Cate, Vols 2 and 6, where I expected to find a blanket reference, but came up empty. I haven't checked Maurer's history of the air arm between the two wars, yet. It's a citation I expect to use nearly forty times. Any idea where I can find it? Lineagegeek (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have no idea. Would be asking you if I had ever dug into the World War II history that far. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Airforcehistoryindex for an example? History of the bomber arm in World War II? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks anyhow. Turns out Maurer's 1919-1939 history has the 1936 establishment of the recon squadrons with 1 attached to each bomb group and that they were continued for medium and heavy groups (by implication, not for light and dive groups). Still missing good general source for flying same plane as the bomb squadrons of the group and the rationale (same mission) for making them bomb squadrons in 1942. afhistory.com might do for individual squadrons, but I was looking for generalities. I've seen the information, it's just not where I thought it would be. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 54

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

English Site?

Hey, @Buckshot06. It's me, the one who raised the Vietnam Ground Forces question. Just wondering, is the second site you suggested in English or not? Just curious. Faithful15 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all things I linked you were in English. Why didn't you just visit the link and check? Would also suggest that Google Translate is hardly a site that parents would worry about much, and to ask them to let you access it. There is masses of useful data on things you're interested in in other languages, and if you proceed slowly with additions to articles following the translation guidance, you would be being very useful in expanding coverage. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, see, I'm only allowed access to specific sites, for one. It's like a filter. And two, I haven't gotten around to asking my parents to unlocking them yet. I don't know where you are, but here in Ozark, AL, there's something going around. All family members sick, and my dad just saw the doctor yesterday on Montgomery time and they said he has fluid in his right lung. They have to do an x-ray on him on Monday. So, no, I haven't gotten there because we've all been sick and busy. Faith15 16:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I'm in New Zealand, as you will see from the banners on my userpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. How bad is it, with all this COVID stuff? Here in the U.S., prices have gone way up, even in the Southern states. I think we even have a coin shortage, man. Faith15 14:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Air Naval Gun Liaison Company Commanding Rank

Hey @Buckshot06. Listen, I need some help. Do you know what rank you have to be at in the U.S. Marines to command an Air Naval Gun Liaison Company? You can shorten it to its abbreviation, ANGLICO, if you feel it necessary. Faith15 15:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you check our article? Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company (ANGLICO) says a lieutenant colonel. If you want verification check whether FieldMarine is still editing. Also, ask to get books.google.com opened up to you - great source for verifying these things. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

K. I'll check him/her out, and double check the article, cuz I didn't see any mention of it being commanded by a LtCol. Faith15 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

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 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Your edit to Iraqi Ground Forces has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa thank you for your attention here, but you are incorrect. I paraphrased the information I added from page 10 in Gordon's "Degrade and Destroy," published last year, a hardcopy book. Library catalogue entry here The source information is correct and I never saw the page link you have just added until you found that book-extract-turned-online-magazine-article. I would be completely in the right to readd the extracted material, repeating the same source citation, but I am happy to clarify the circumstances and/or send you a photo of the page, book, publisher's information, or Worldcat entry etc in question. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Perhaps the article is an excerpt from the book; the author is the same. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the author is the same and the text is the same. Have no doubt of that whatsoever. Gordon has clearly copyright permission to reproduce, whichever version came first. I was thinking of the close paraphrasing rules as I drafted, and tried to convey the information - which is legal under US copyright law, Fair Use - without infringing copyright. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. So a rewrite will have to be done. — Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy to - no problem. I want your input. I will set up a sandbox space on the talk page, and we can play around with the wording. I will ping you from the talk page when version 0.01 is ready for your review. Hopefully it won't take 25 versions before something is workable!! :) :) Buckshot06 (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I won't be able to help you with the rewrite, as I have to massively reduce my computer time due to health reasons. Also, please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing, not even in sandboxes, talk pages, or drafts. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs and work on it there until you are sure it's completely original. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A Favor for A Friend - Equipment of the Spanish Army

Hey, @Buckshot06, it's me, @Faithful15. Look, I have a favor to ask of you. If you're familiar with the Spanish Army's equipment, then can you look it up and add it to the Spanish Army page? Someone took the equipment page down, and, as I explained last time you helped me, I don't have access to sufficient resources. So, could you help me here? Faith15 15:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Hi Faithful15. Have you signed up for WP:TWL? Masses of data there.
• 2. Nick-D can we access The Military Balance somehow through TWL or similar? Faithful15 is itching to help in various ways though sometimes doesn't have full access to the data he needs. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, @Buckshot06. Uh, no, but I'm sure that once I talk to my parents about allowing me into that I can sign up and start digging there. But until then, let me know if you find anything of the said subject, please. Faith15 20:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is *entirely* on Wikipedia!! Go to WP:TWL and put your name down; there's no problem..

  The information, the best open estimates for any army's equipment, organisation, strength, etc, are updated every year by

  https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/tmib20

  Meanwhile we will see if we can get you a copy of the Military Balance Europe chapter. Do not worry, I have a number of Military Balance back issues, we will get some kind of update uploaded. But it will not be instant.

  Meanwhile a list of types if not numbers has been uploaded by the Spanish themselves at https://ejercito.defensa.gob.es/en/materiales/

  What was the exact title of the page that was taken down?

  Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  • OK the chapter for Europe has been located, I can access it, you can see the access link (I dropped the link on your talkpage). Now you need to go to the top of this page, select "Tools," select "E-mail this user" and I can get it to you. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if the question has been answered, but yes you can access The Military Balance via the Wikipedia Library. The Taylor & Francis database has the current edition and back catalogue. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, good. I just spoke to a Grand'mere Eugene. He says to get in, I need a minimum of at least 500 edits or something? He said I'm at 110. Faith15 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I will need to ask my parents to open that link up, cause it is included on the filter. Faith15 14:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

4th Tank Brigade (Ukraine)

Hi. I have an issue with edit on the 4th Tank Brigade (Ukraine) by user Uwdwadafsainainawinfi. The sources added only help with one line of text. Others show no relevant information which is being shown as sourced now, with a new source. Ukrainian sources were deleted. There are 2 edits, so I don't know how to revert properly. If you can look over the page and help fix it, I would really appreciate it. Ceriy (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

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: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

USS Robert Smalls (CG-62) and The Naming Commission

Hi, and thanks for your comments on my tp, it's appreciated. As to the name change issue, I had posted a reply (which you can see here), but then saw you joined the discussion at wt:ships. I also replied to your comments there. I don't want to split the discussion, so I've cleared my tp, and hope to see you further at wt:ships. Cheers - wolf 00:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't need to clear my compliments re J-Man22 :)

Parsecboy said, and I quote, "DOD-related sources will obviously use the new name, which is where most coverage of the vessel will happen for the remainder of its life.." And there are constant reports of deployment news from most DOD ships!! So again I simply do not understand.

I came specifically to your talkpage to put you on the spot on this issue.

However, I've read your reverted comments at your tp; feel free to not respond (or "thank," if you will) this reply. Happy to talk further at the talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot, I really did appreciate the compliment, but I'm sure you noticed by now I never keep anything on my talk page, I clear everything basically as soon as I've read it. I had replied to thank you, then went further into the name change issue, but after, I thought it better to keep the discussion at wt:ships, where one is already taking place. As it is, I've just been called a "racist" there, (which you "whole-heartedly agreed with"...?!), and I think that if perhaps they read my (collapsed) comment at the Chancellorsville talk page, maybe they wouldn't have posted that attack. That's what can come from split-discussions. As for Parsecboy's comment, I don't recall reading that and I don't know where it is, but we can't base article names on what might found be in future sources. As for the last bit, I never said, then reverted, "feel free not to respond"... I'm not sure where you got that. But with that "racist" accusation, it's not my biggest concern at the moment... - wolf 04:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Communications on the internet can be *so* difficult!! You've managed to misunderstand me I think twice :( :) So (1) I do not think *you* were called a racist. I do not believe you are a racist. There's another user around here that I would be much more likely to call a racist. I am annoyed that we had to dog-whistle racism to get (2) people to respond in line with NAMECHANGES - and long precedent in terms of how DOD publicises routine activities by CGs (which we can easily project forward in this case). (3) This one's clearer. All I meant was, to my last comment, you did not have to respond - because you wanted to keep everything at the article talk page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You and User Ɱ have said that anyone who disagrees with the change in article name is a racist. I don't appreciate being called a racist. Please withdraw your vicious personal attack.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologise. I went a little too far, I think. Try "Any attempt to repeatedly defend maintaining the old name risks accusations of racism." That probably sums up my thinking better. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

• New bundle partners:
  • Newspapers.com
  • Fold3
• 1Lib1Ref January report
• Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing cite in Flag Officer, Surface Flotilla

The article cites "Arkin 2005" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added the reference Renata3. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:U.S. Army Air Forces units and formations involved in the strategic bombing of Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:U.S. Army Air Forces units and formations involved in the strategic bombing of Germany indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

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: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:MilAward § Making this work

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:MilAward § Making this work. BoonDock (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Marcel Tétu

Thanks for editing Marcel Tétu DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That's just fine. Click through to fr:Marcel Têtu and then use Google Translate to translate more material if you want, carefully. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah i wanted to do like wars he fought in idk how to do that could u help with that DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Click through to fr:Marcel Têtu and then use Google Translate to translate more material if you want, carefully. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mechanised infantry brigades of Ukraine has been nominated for deletion

Category:Mechanised infantry brigades of Ukraine has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leningrad Military District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

North Caucasus Military District

added a link pointing to Cool

Volga Military District

added a link pointing to Buzuluk

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Templates for mechanized brigades of Ukraine

A tag has been placed on Category:Templates for mechanized brigades of Ukraine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Military District V (East Germany), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about Order of Battle

Hi

This a personal curiosity.

Order have many meanings in English. What is the exact meaning of order in the order of battle?

We call it '전투 서열' in Korean. South Korean military also used term '전투 서열'

전투 means battle. It's perfect. But Korea, Japan, China translated order into 서열(序列).

Order have below meaning.

"the way in which people or things are arranged, either in relation to one another or according to a particular characteristic:
For example.
The children lined up in order of age/height.not in chronological order
Put the files in alphabetical/chronological order.

We call this meaning '순서' in Korean.

순서 and 서열 is similar but different. Meaning of 서열 is similar to ranking or grade

I convinced that Korea, Japn, China made a translation error.

I think that 전투서열 is a wrong term

In the Order of Battle, I think that order means a situation in which everything about battle is arranged.

Is it right?

Footwiks (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ko:https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/전투_서열 A description of the organisation of a military force in hierarchical order. Can be in-garrison or exactly laid out of a field ready for battle.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/order%20of%20battle - second meaning. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Spartan 3000

Hi, wolf rerverted your contribution on the List of military special forces units.

So I attached dispute template on the Spartan 3000.

But wolf removed dispute template too.

Do I violate rules of wikipedia?

The goal of most discussion in Wikipedia is to find the accurate information or truth.

But this discussion is somewhat unusual and works in a strange way.

I edited and participated in discussion for more than 10 years in Wikipedia, but I've never seen a case like this.

How can we resolve the dispute with wolf.

Thanks anyways Footwiks (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

• New partner:
  • Perlego
• Library access tips and tricks
• Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Four years

Hello. I do not understand when you mean the move of the ammunition depot from Voznesensk to Cobasna took four years. Wouldn't it then have required to be located in Voznesensk in the first place? When would this have happened then? Super Ψ Dro 08:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Azerbaijani Land Forces

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

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (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) 09:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

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 review three recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)