User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Christmas

I just dropped by to thank you very much for your kind message, and to wish a marry Christmas to you and your loved ones. FkpCascais (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Revert

Hi! I don't understand your explanaition of this revert. I can understand "no link in titles" (but this article is full of them) but I don't know what's wrong with "refs within ref tags" - afaik it's common practice on en-Wikipedia. E.g. see featured article Battle of Midway. I just wanted to add link to additional informations about Malinska-class minelayers (because there is no article about them on Wikipedia) and also group this fife vessels into class. Best regards, --Sceadugenga (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I know there are other links in titles in the article, but the WP:MOS says no. As far as the citation is concerned, what you've done is place your citation inside the Conway's one, and no-one can see it. If you want to add it, you need to put it inside its own reftags. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation. Now I understand - on Czech Wikipedia it's common practice to merge more citations into one ref tag. I'll fix it. Cheers, --Sceadugenga (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The Original Barnstar
Awarded to Peacemaker67, as part of AustralianRupert's 2014 New Year Honours List, in recognition of his work as an article writer throughout 2013 contributing a number of high quality articles in an under-represented, but difficult topic area. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Image of WWII

Hello to you! Please tell me what do you mean with "doesn't appear to be free"? Image is on commons, and its under public domain? I just have found it there, please be so kind, explain it to me. Is there some problem with that image i am not aware of? Thanks, Happy New Year to you! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook nine reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The WikiProject Barnstar
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2013 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, ed! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Glina massacres ACR

Gday again. Have your cmts been address here? Anotherclown (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the reviewer's award!--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 08:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. I appreciate the kind words.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Operation Halyard page

Daniel Sunter (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Hello Peacemaker67! Thank you for your message. Have a few questions: Why the Partisans are stated as belligerent in the first paragraph? No sources were provided to support that claim. OSS deployed separate missions to Chetniks (Halyard/ACRU and Ranger) and Partisans (Rakeoff, Floatsam, California, Cuckold, Durand, Mulberry, Relator, Redwood, Geisha, Abbeville, Spike, Altmark, Dunklin, Arrow/ACRU etc). Why the data from "OSS and the Yugoslav Resistance 1943-1945" by Kirk Ford, "Bombing the European Axis Powers" by Richard Davis and William Leary`s "Fueling the Fires of Resistance" related to the 15th Air Force sorties over the Balkans and the Halyard Operation were removed? All of them are considered as highly reputable public sources and directly related to this topic. Why the "Halyard Mission" documentary film link was removed from the page as well as authentic US Army photos of the Halyard Operation from Wikimedia Commons? I`d like to collaborate with you and improve the current page dedicated to the Halyard Operation. Cheers, Daniel.

G'day Daniel, what you have done is mix up legitimate edits using what appear to be reliable sources with the removal of other reliable sources, and the introduction of primary sources. I strongly object to this approach, mainly because it makes work for other editors re-instating reliable sources you have removed without any justification whatsoever. You began the process by removing other reliable sources, all I did was return the article to its pre-disruption state so that you could go ahead and add the reliable sources you have without also removing other reliable sources already in the article. If reliable sources conflict, we contrast them, we don't delete the ones we don't like. Please do not use primary sources without discussing here first, they must be used very carefully. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, your additional questions. The film is not public domain so far as I can tell, few YouTube vids are. The pics do not state a real source (ie a roll number of index number from the National Archives, or a publication date or title). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Sunter (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Thank you for clarification. I`d be glad to add the reliable sources and apologize for any inconvinience. I agree that reliable sources should be contrasted. What to do when new edit based on the reliable sources conflicts unsourced edit in very same paragraph or in case of reliable sources being edited/interpreted/quoted wrongly? Example from the first paragraph: given number of the rescued airmen in the second sentence does correspond to Tomasevich`s book but rest of the sentence conflicts with the book and other reliable sources. Third sentence is based on unsourced statistics. Belligerent box on the right side is also based on unsourced edit and conflicts reliable sources. Who is entitled to make corrections and remove unsourced edits in conflict with reliable sources? Regards, D.

Chetniks

I noticed you have edited the article, Chetniks. After removing references and referenced information three times, user:User:2A00:C440:20:27E:248A:3A23:609F:A121 has initiated a discussion concerning the fictional[1] and bias[2],[3] of Sabrina Ramet's book, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. I thought you might be interested in this issue. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Revert

You reverted my addition of the image and pointed to the discussion. Will you please clarify what is the problem:

  • is it a source
  • is it a caption (the first town can be changed into first bigger town)
  • is it something else?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It is an extraordinary claim (the caption stating that it was the first liberated town in occupied Europe). You'd need some pretty good sources to claim it is the first "bigger" town (whatever that means). The discussion on that archive page explains that there were several towns liberated in other places in Yugoslavia in July 1941 (well before this). This issue has been discussed, it's someone's wishful thinking. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I've re-factored this to the article talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Halyard op: controversy section

Hello Peacemaker67! Controversy section of the Halyard Op page is unsourced, in conflict with reliable sources and contain major factual errors. Claim "Mihalović assisted the US airborne evac of about 250 from Chetnik territory in Aug 1944" is a factual error - according to Tomasevich, Ford, Leary and Freeman Mihailović assisted the US airborne evacuation Halyard from July till December. Claim "This simply meant that the Chetniks allowed the Americans to use their airstrip for the evacuation – scarcely a particularly heroic action" is also a factual error - according to Ford, Leary, Freeman there was no airstrip to be used for mass evacuation so US mission jointly with the Chetniks, 300 local Serbs (with sixty ox carts) had to clear meadow and level the terrain in order to create suitable airstrip. According to same reliable sources Serbian farmers and Chetniks fed and sheltered crash landed airmen and provided medical treatment of wounded/injured etc. Claim "Mihailovic’s Chetniks rescued German airmen and handed them over safely to the German armed forces – were he so inclined, Schroeder could follow Washington’s example" is not supported by verifiable source. What is your view on that matter? Regards, D.Daniel Sunter (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

G'day Daniel, I would prefer it if we had these discussions on the article talk page in front of the whole community. The whole subsection is sourced from Hoare, who was writing for the Henry Jackson Society. The document in question is available here. You are drawing implications from Hoare's words that are not there. Nowhere did he say that the Chetniks and villagers didn't make an airstrip, it is my understanding that this is pretty generally accepted. Please read the whole article, and continue this discussion on the article talk page where I have copied it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

An apology

Is probably in order for this edit summary of yours. You don't know anything about me. Timbouctou (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and btw, once you are done fighting your imaginary crusades against whatever you think looks like Balkan nationalism, take a second to meditate on the existence of Category:1944 in England (not really a country in 1944, so the category is a subset of Category:1944 in the United Kingdom) or Category:1944 in Massachusetts (not a country in 1944 but a subset of Category:1944 in the United States by state which is yet a subset of Category:1944 in the United States), or even Category:1944 in Slovenia (not a country in 1944, but the category is a subset of Category:1944 in Yugoslavia). Fascinating stuff indeed. Timbouctou (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
My point, obviously not made clearly, is that the two are not mutually exclusive, nor is Category:1944 in Croatia merely a subset of Category:1944 in Yugoslavia. Category:1944 in Croatia is a non-diffusing subcategory (or entirely a subset) of Category:Years in Croatia, which itself is entirely a subset of Category:Years in Europe. But Category:Years in Croatia is also a diffusing subcategory of Category:Years in Yugoslavia. Together, what that means is that the two categories can and should both be used for this article (and others). People looking at Croatia want to see what happened in what is now that country throughout its history (including during WWII), and the same applies to Yugoslavia. If articles are only placed into the scheme that applies to that geographical place now, there is no Yugoslav timeline at all. Therefore, not including Category:1944 in Yugoslavia would be very poor categorisation. It's neither useful for WP in terms of creating timelines and is generally unhelpful. The Yugoslavia timeline categories are a mess, and a template needs to be added to all the Yugoslavia and former Yugoslav timeline categories to remedy it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Just a note. I went to the Waffen SS Handschar page expecting to find tirades and POV pushing, since where I often work this is normal. I was quite surprised at the quality of work there, the neutrality and levelheadedness, and the commitment to first-rate sourcing. Thanks for your efforts, and keep up the good work. Cheers (no reply, because no flattery is intended, required.) Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your tireless work on topics which suffer from nationalism, bad history, and other neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier move -- not accomplished

We end up on the List article because of a redirect. I think the way to fix this is with a deletion of the redirect page. (But I'm not sure.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Precious again

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

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

A year ago, you were the 422nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Goodonya Gerda, and thanks! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Your contributed article, Hans Reinhardt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Hans Reinhardt. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Hans-Wolfgang Reinhard. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Hans-Wolfgang Reinhard – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sándor Képíró

This guy should probably be added to Operation Bora. I'd do it myself, but I don't know what is required. Srnec (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Italian governorate of Montenegro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{DEFAULTSORT:Montenegro, Italian governate of)}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Italian governorate of Montenegro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • influx of refugees from other parts of Yugoslavia and those fleeing the [[Ustaše]] terror in Bosnia]] and Herzegovina. The Montenegrin people also had grievances against the Italians regarding their
  • On 15 May 1943, XIV Corps was combined with the [[Ninth Army (Italy)}|9th Army]] and the [[Second Army (Italy)|2nd Army]]'s [[VI Corps (Italy)|VI Corps]] to form [[Army

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Thanks for the Invite

Invitation

Peacemaker67 - Thanks for the recent invite. I entered my areas of expertise as indicated. Like you, I am interested in factual and scholarly substantiation. Many times, I peruse Wikipedia pages looking for "citation needed" and find the requisite information. As an expert researcher and historian by education, this is usually fairly easy for me to do. This is a consequence of having access to voluminous sources and databases. My research skills were honed when I was a teaching assistant at one of the satellite campuses of NDU. Like you, I am not fond of opinion that has no academic substantiation. Often I am frustrated when dealing with fellow Wikipedians who either lack the education or depth of scholarly knowledge to contest an entry, particularly when it is sourced accordingly.

While I noticed your interest in Yugoslavia, I have to report that my subject matter expertise on this topic is constrained to the Balkans from before the First World War through the Second World War (Nazi atrocities etc). However, I do have a coworker who commanded a unit during the struggle to deal with Slobodan Milosevic. Anyway - if I can be of any assistance for the earlier period of Yugoslavia's history, particularly their dealings with Germany, I'd be happy to share what I can. --Obenritter (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview for the upcoming edition of the Bugle

Hi Diannaa, Ian Rose and I, are hoping to run a group interview with editors who work on German military history topics in next month's edition of the Bugle. Based on your work in this field, we'd like to invite you to participate. If you have time, it would be great if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Interview. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the opportunity! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Chetnik-German Agreements

The Agreements of November 1943 - January 1944 (Lukacevic, Kalabic, Simic, Jovanovic, Cacic) were concluded with General Commando South-East (Oberkommando Sudost), not with Militärbefehlshaber Sudost Felber. Tomasevic's text is a bit vague, but I have original documents.(for example NAW T77, roll 822, frame 630919) --Gorran (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Original docs are WP:PRIMARY and must only be used with particular care. In this case, CinC Southeast Europe von Weichs issued the directive of 21 November allowing collaboration agreements, but delegated the responsibility for concluding them to Felber (the Military Commander in Southeast Europe). Tomasevich actually quotes the Simic agreement on page 326, and clearly indicates Felber, not von Weichs, is the party to the agreement. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And by 22 November another Abwehr decrypt had disclosed that the German C-in-C South East had signed a secret treaty with the commander of a Cetnik HQ in Montenegro covering a cease-fire in the Uzice area, west of Sarajevo, as a preliminary to joint action against the Partisans. - BRITISH INTELLIGENCE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR - ABRIDGED VERSION by F.H. HINSLEY Fellow of St John’s College and Emeritus Professor of the History of International Relations in the University of Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1993, p. 359--Gorran (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What of the statement on p. 323 of Tomasevich 1975 that the Lukacevic, Kalabic/Simic and Cacic agreements were all between Felber and the respective Chetniks and were signed by von Wrede, Felber's Ic? And that per p. 320-321, that von Weichs delegated his authority to Felber? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Checked again - you (and Tomasevich) were right. Felber was authorized by v.Weichs, so he made the deal as instructed, and deal was good for all formations under v.Weichs' command. I apologize for erroneous editing.--Gorran (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries, it happens. I'm glad you and I both went back and checked the sources, instead of just repeating our views. Look forward to collaborating with you on articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope that's what Wikipedia is about. Regards, --Gorran (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It is for most editors... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Main Page appearance: 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

This is a note to let the main editors of 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 23, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Soldiers of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division

The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) was a German mountain infantry division of the Waffen-SS during World War II. It was given the title Handschar after a fighting knife carried by Turkish policemen when the region was part of the Ottoman Empire. From March to December 1944, it fought a counter-insurgency campaign against communist-led Yugoslav Partisan resistance forces in the Independent State of Croatia. The first non-Germanic Waffen-SS division, it was composed of Bosnian Muslims with some Catholic Croat soldiers and mostly German and ethnic German officers and non-commissioned officers. It swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler and the Croatian leader Ante Pavelić. It established a designated "security zone" in north-eastern Bosnia but fought outside the zone on several occasions. It gainied a reputation for brutality and savagery during combat operations and atrocities against Serb and Jewish civilians. After late 1944, non-German members began to desert in large numbers, particularly once they had retreated inside the Reich frontier. Others surrended to Britsh forces. Thirty-eight officers were extradited to Yugoslavia, and ten were executed. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Skanderbeg (military unit) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Skanderbeg (military unit) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Skanderbeg (military unit) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav mobilization?

Yugoslav coup d'état says that on 14 February 1941 Hitler "pushed for the demobilization of the Royal Yugoslav Army". What parts were mobilized at that time and when did this happen? Srnec (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I will check that out and add the info. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I could not access Tomasevich's Chetniks earlier in the day (yesterday) and I could not find a clear reference online to mobilization prior to the coup. On p. 32 he refers to the "reactivation (in fact mobilization) of [Yugoslav] troops in Macedonia and parts of Serbia, which may have had some influence on Italian troop shifts." He seems to place this at the beginning of the Greco-Italian conflict, since the footnote refers to the Italian bombing of Bitola on 5 November. He says on p. 57 that "during 1939–40 there were repeated but ineffectual periodic activations (euphemism for mobilization) of the reserves." Actual general mobilization was delayed until 3 April (p. 64), as I'm sure you know. I've added a parenthetical explanation at the pertinent place in the text of the article, cited to Tomasevich. Srnec (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That rings a bell. I haven't been able to find anything else specific regarding mobilisations/activations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Which FA?

Handzar or the Chetniks? In the case of Handzar you must agree me with me that such accusatory weasel language (as "brutal" and "savage") is highly indicative of a slanderous subjective agenda. Funnily enough, the same group of involved editors object when the Chetniks are described in the same terms. Surely they were no better. In either case the lead should be free of such attributes. 46.239.102.207 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Handzar obviously, the Chetniks article is far from FA. I cannot take you seriously on a FA if you want to edit as an IP. I know there is no rule against it, but there are hundreds of IPs that disrupt Balkan articles every single week, and most of us revert on sight. Register a log-in and join the community, that way we know your history and can see what you are up to, and your agenda or lack thereof can be assessed. Assuming good faith with IPs when they claim others are pushing an agenda is a big ask, especially on FAs. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Main Page appearance: Pavle Đurišić

This is a note to let the main editors of Pavle Đurišić know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 13, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pavle Đurišić

Pavle Đurišić (1909–1945) was a Montenegrin Serb officer of the Royal Yugoslav Army who became a Chetnik commander during World War II. He was one of the commanders of the popular uprising against the Italians in Montenegro in July 1941, then collaborated with the Italians against the Yugoslav Partisans. In 1943, troops under his command carried out several massacres against the Muslim population of Bosnia, Herzegovina and the Sandžak and participated in an anti-Partisan offensive alongside Italian troops. He was captured by the Germans in May 1943, escaped and was recaptured. He was released after the Italian surrender and began collaborating with the Germans and the Serbian puppet government, creating the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps with German assistance. In late 1944, he was decorated with the Iron Cross 2nd Class by the German commander in Montenegro. He was killed by elements of the Armed Forces of the Independent State of Croatia near Banja Luka after he was captured in an apparent trap. Đurišić was a very able Yugoslav Chetnik leader, and his fighting skills were respected by his allies and opponents alike. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First Proletarian Brigade

I just started this page when I found your draft. I woulkd be grateful if you used it to replace my feeble efforts!Leutha (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind. It has languished in my userspace for a long time. Sure, happy to do that. I've requested your page be converted into a redirect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just now noticed that with this edit(diff) you wrote a comment about me ("you are extremely sensitive, perhaps too sensitive to be editing WP") but also linked your comment to WP:NOTTHERAPY essay which is clear implication that I am editor with disabilities.

A couple of days ago you wrote a comment that I am "king of cherry-pickers" (diff).

This is only a continuation of your long term practice (many years long) to write this kind of comments to me, but during past several days your comments became more frequently violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. Please cease your hostile behavior to me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Trying to address real editing problems is not a personal attack. If several different editors feel there are similar problems in your editing, the best explanation is not that they're all conspiring to insult you. There is a much simpler explanation. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ad. I have made my views on your behaviour on WP clear. Given that you continue to behave in the same way despite multiple editors expressing their frustration and concern with your behaviour, I am clearly not on my own. WP constitutes a "wide church", but I have not encountered the combination of behaviours you display elsewhere in my couple of years here. You are apparently fixated on "righting wrongs" or "correcting the record" around controversial people and events or something, but in the process your edits are extremely tedentious and you are very disruptive to other editors. Your approach to policy appears to be affected by what I assess to be a marginal comprehension of academic English. You appear to be extremely sensitive to questioning, usually avoid questions to focus on the smallest perceived slight, and demand immediate responses from editors who would probably rather not interact with you at all, and would probably wish to be doing something productive with their time on WP. If you have been insulted, you need to take some responsibility for your own actions that have contributed to my interactions with you. Despite the fact that you appear excessively sensitive and have demonstrated poor English comprehension, I unreservedly apologise for any hurt you have felt as a result of our interactions. To limit the potential for further unpleasantness, I will no longer interact with you on talk pages unless I have need to discuss an edit you have made in article space. I will not respond to you in talk space except in those circumstances, and will do my best to keep my comments civil. You would benefit from examining your own behaviour. If you respond to this comment I will not be replying. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Personal note of thanks

Hi Peacemaker. :) I love that name; I am a peacemaker myself! (Not to be conceited). Anyway, I saw your edit on Pavle Đurišić and thought it was truly wonderful. You definitely touched up the article. Keep up the beyond-fantastic work. EmilyREditor (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And another such note, thank you for today's 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)! - I made Peace part of an acrostic on my user page, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For continuing, relatively balanced, and attempted-neutrality editing in a very controversial field of wikipedia work. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Buckshot. It's not always easy... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your extraordinary effort, attention to detail, and commitment to reliable sources in countless articles under Operation Bora's scope. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, PRODUCER. Thank you. Nice one. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, you deserve it. I'd help and be more involved, but I'm treading through far worse bog at the moment. Anyway keep up the excellent work! --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive_8&oldid=1143221153"